JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. Present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban-Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), (for short called 'the Act')-Smt. Champa Devi and another seeking a writ of certiorari to quash following orders: (i) Order dated 1-9-1999 passed by District Judge in Revision No. nil of 1999 (An-nexure-17 to the Writ Petition). (ii) Order dated 25-8-1999 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejecting application under Section 16 (5) of the Act filed by Smt. Champa Devi challenging the order of release dated 3-2-1999 (Anncxure-16 to the Writ Petition). (iii) Order dated 19th April, 1999 passed by District Judge rejecting recall order 8th April, 1999 (Annexure-12toihc Writ Petition). (iv) Order dated 8th April, 1999 passed by District Judge rejecting Revision filed by Smt. Champa Devi against order of release dated 3-2-1999 (Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition). (v) Order dated 3rd February, 1999 order of release passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition). (vi) Order dated 13th December, 1999 order of declaring vacancy passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition). 2. SMT. Champa Devi had earlier come to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 15378 of 1999. The case was taken up "on some dates and finally said Writ Petition was withdrawn vide this Court order dated 16th April, 1999 (Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition), the Writ Petition, was filed to challenge the release order dated 3rd February, 1999. Simultaneously, she filed Revision also before District Judge, which was dismissed as not maintainable. It appears that Smt. Champa Devi was not property advised and Counsel engaged by her did not lend proper professional advice. 3. PERUSAL of the record shows that Smt. Champa Devi had filed Application dated 27th April, 1999 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition) under Section 16 (5) of the Act and sought review of the release order dated 3rd February, 1999. 4. AT the outset, it is mentioned that in none of the proceedings initialed by said Smt. Champa Devi, issues arising in the application under Section 16 (5) of the Act were adjudicated on merit. 4. AT the outset, it is mentioned that in none of the proceedings initialed by said Smt. Champa Devi, issues arising in the application under Section 16 (5) of the Act were adjudicated on merit. Application for review under Section 16 (5) of the Act was heard by Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the same was dismissed vide] impugned judgment and order dated 25th August, 1999 (Annexure-l6 to the Writ Petition). I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as contesting respondent represented by Sri Murli Dhar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri O. S. Tripathi, Advocate. 5. PERUSAL of the order shows that the said application of Smt. Champa Devi under Section 16 (5) of the Act has been rejected only on the ground that she had challenged order of release in revision, which has beef dismissed by Court of District Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th April, 1999 (Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition). 8. As already slated above, revision filed by Smt. (Champa Devi, which was dismissed by District Judge vide order dated 8th April, 1999 was not decided on merit. Learned District Judge observed that revision was not maintainable in law. 9. In view of the above, the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot be justified. Petitioner is entitled for adjudication of the issues raised by her at least once. Against order aforementioned of Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 25th August, 1999, a revision was preferred, which has been dismissed by learned District Judge, vide order dated 1-9-1999. Leaned District Judge has committed similar error, which is apparent on the face of record. The observation of the District Judge that review petition has be-come infructious cannot be sustained. As already mentioned above that review petition was required to toe adjudicated on merit in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above, impugned judgment and order dated 25th August, 1999 (Annexure-16 to the Writ-Petition)-passed by Rent Control and Eviction officer as well as judgment and order dated 1st September, 1999 (Anncxure-17 to the Writ Petition) passed by District Judge are quashed. Application under Section 16 (5) of the Act filed by Smt. Champa Devi will be considered on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in accordance with law. 11. Since the allegations against Mr. Application under Section 16 (5) of the Act filed by Smt. Champa Devi will be considered on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in accordance with law. 11. Since the allegations against Mr. A. K. Shahi, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, impleaded by name as Respondent No. 3 have been made, I direct that District Magistrate may decide the application under Section 16 (5) of the Act himself or appoint some competent officer (other than Mr. A.K. Shahi) as may be deemed appropriate by him for deciding the present case. The application under Section 16 (5) of the Act, will be decided within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the District Magistrate. 12. Writ Petition succeeds subject to the observations made above and the case arising out of application under Section 16 (5) of the Act is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Varanasi for deciding the case on merits in accordance with law within the time stipulated above. Petition allowed.