Judgment : R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent. 2. PETITIONER by means of the present petition, challenges the validity of the order dated 5-7-96, whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondent against the order dated 16-6-94, was allowed. Brief facts of the case are that a portion of the building in question -was allotted to the petitioner and the other portion was allotted to Naresh Baliyan respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the allotment orders were issued in favour of allottees. The portions of the building were specified not only in the order, but also in the map, which formed part of the record. On the basis of the order of allotment possession was delivered to the petitioner over the portion of the building, which was allotted to her. It is also relevant to state that the validity of the said order of allotment was challenged by means of a revision before the revisional authority under Section 18 of the Act. However, the said revision was dismissed and the order of allotment has become final. 3. LONG thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer claiming that there was a mistake in the order of allotment which was required to be rectified. The said application was objected to by the contesting respondent, who has pleaded that the application was highly belated and was not maintainable legally, as the order of allotment was already given effect to and was acted upon by the parties that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to review his order after two years from the date of allotment. How ever, the said application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and two rooms on the first floor of the building in question were allotted to the petitioner by means of the order dated 16-6-94. As stated above, the said order was challenged before the revisional authority by means of a revision, which was allowed and the order dated 16-6-94 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer was set aside by the revisional authority vide its order dated 5-7-1996, which is impugned in the present petition. 4. As stated above, the said order was challenged before the revisional authority by means of a revision, which was allowed and the order dated 16-6-94 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer was set aside by the revisional authority vide its order dated 5-7-1996, which is impugned in the present petition. 4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a clerical error which was rectified by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, therefore, the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent contended that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of two rooms and the order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer is wholly without jurisdiction. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record. 6. THE revisional authority after going through the evidence on record has rightly held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction modify the order of allotment and to allot two more rooms in favour of the petitioner. I have perused the order of allotment passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the map of the building in which the portions allotted to the two allottees (petitioner and respondent No. 2, were distinctly specified) there was no question of any clerical error or vagueness. Further the said order was already acted upon by the parties without any objection. Long thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner for modification of the allotment order, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer acted illegally in entertaining the said application and allowing the same. Beyond sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has got no power to review his orders and the present case does not come under said section. 7. THE revisional authority has rightly held that the order of allotment passed under Section 16 of the Act could not be reviewed. 8. THE order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is wholly without jurisdiction and the revisional authority i. e. District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar has rightly set aside the said order. 7. THE revisional authority has rightly held that the order of allotment passed under Section 16 of the Act could not be reviewed. 8. THE order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is wholly without jurisdiction and the revisional authority i. e. District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar has rightly set aside the said order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 9. THE writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.