JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. The dispute relates to Shop No. 2, Bazar Kalan, Rampur, owned by Masjid Gulzar Khanam. Hari Om Agarwal (petitioner) claims that he was doing partnership business along with another person namely, Prakash Chand Jain in the said shop ever since 1970. According to him the partnership was dissolved and petitioner came in exclusive possession of the said shop (called shop in question) and was paying rent though receipt were issued in the name of Prakash Chand Jain by the landlord. 2. IN the year 1979 Abdul Raoof; respondent No. 3 appears to have initiated proceedings for allotment under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short called the Act) and as a consequence thereof the shop, in question was declared vacant on 6-12-1979 and thereafter- allotment order was issued in favour or respondent No. 3 in respect of the shop in question. The police was directed to get the possession delivered to respondent No. 3 and on 5- 2-1980 petitioner himself filed objection against action of police directing for initiation action to get shop vacated from petitioner for being delivered to respondent No. 3 (Abdul Raoof). The petitioner, however, filed an application For review in order to seek cancellation of allotment order dated 31-12-1979 obtained by Abdul Raoof in his favour with respect to the shop in question. True copy of the memorandum or said application for review has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition. Hari Om Agarwal. , petitioner, occupant of the shop in question prayed that allotment order in favour of Abdul Raoof dated 31-12-1979 be cancelled and his possession of the shop in question be regularized. True copy of the memorandum or said application for review has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition. Hari Om Agarwal. , petitioner, occupant of the shop in question prayed that allotment order in favour of Abdul Raoof dated 31-12-1979 be cancelled and his possession of the shop in question be regularized. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 2 entertained the said application under Section 16 (presumable under Section 16 (5) of the Act) and allowed the said application declaring that possession of said Hari Om Agarwal (petitioner) not authorized, he was entitled to continue in possession of the shop in question and that the order declaring the shop vacant leading to allotment orders in favour of Abdul Raoof (dated 6-12-1979 and 31-12-1979) were revoked/since this Court noticed certain typographical error in the copy of the said order dated 23-3-1980 (Annexure-5 to the petition), Counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce certified copy of the judgment and also file a photostat copy of the said certified copy of the judgment for being taken on record. The Court has perused the certified copy of the said judgment and photostat copy of the certified judgment has also been taken on record. 3. FEELING aggrieved from the above order dated 23-3-1980 (Annexure-5) Abdul Raoof filed Revision No. 28of 1980, which was allowed by II Additional District Judge, Rampur vide judgment and order dated 27th May, 1981 (Annexure-3 of the petition). The Learned Additional District Judge entertained said revision without adverting to the fact that no such revision was maintainable under law. Even if none of the parties raised objection on this score, it was a statutory obligation of the said Court to advert to the- said fact. The order of remand became final as the concerned parties acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the said Court. Learned Counsel for the parties admitted that order of remand was not challenged further before higher Court. 4. THE Revisional Court, however, observed that the contention of the learned Counsel arguing on behalf of Hari Om Agarwal was not sustainable in law on the question of presumption of 'consent' on the part of landlord. THE Revisional Court, however, erred in referring to irrelevant extraneous consideration like passing subsequent allotment order which, ad no nexus with the question relating to the validity of the judgment challenged before him. THE Revisional Court, however, erred in referring to irrelevant extraneous consideration like passing subsequent allotment order which, ad no nexus with the question relating to the validity of the judgment challenged before him. THE Revisional Court, however, did not refer to the date of sub sequent allotment order and appears to have misread the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 23-3-1980 (Annexure-5) inasmuch as it treated it as an order of allotment in favour of Hari Om Agarwal. THE Revisional Court, however, while allowing said Revision No. 28 of 1980, passed following order of remand: "the Revision is hereby allowed. THE Judgment and order dated 28-3-1980 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Ram-pur, are hereby set aside. THE case is remanded back for trial afresh in accordance with law and observations made above. Parties are appeared 27-7-1980. " Perusal of the said order of remand dated 27-5-1981 (Annexure 3) shows that learned Additional District Judge did not consider evidence of the parties which were otherwise relevant to decide the issue of consent of the landlord and avoided to adjudicate on this issue. On the other hand, it directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for 'trial afresh in accordance with law. . . '. 5. ON matter having been remanded, as indicated above, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to hear and adjudicate the dispute in accordance with the said direction. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (respondent No. 2) passed impugned order dated September 11, 1981 (Annexure 2 to the petition) wherein it has taken the view that the findings recorded in the order dated 27-5-1981 (Annexure 3) had become final were binding on the said authority on the ground that the Revisional Court also has not given any specific directions in the judgment to decide point afresh and "it has upheld the allotment order. . . . . . . . and set aside the subsequent order dated 28th March, 1980 passed in favour of Sri Hari Om Agarwal. . . . . . . The natural and legal consequence are that Sri Abdul Raoof Shamsi being an allottees of the shop in question is entitled to obtain possession over it. . . . . . . . . . . and set aside the subsequent order dated 28th March, 1980 passed in favour of Sri Hari Om Agarwal. . . . . . . The natural and legal consequence are that Sri Abdul Raoof Shamsi being an allottees of the shop in question is entitled to obtain possession over it. . . . . . . . ", and hence the said authority directed the said Hari Om Agarwal petitioner to vacate the shop in question and deliver its possession to Abdul Raoof, respondent No. 3. 6. FEELING aggrieved Hari Om Agarwal, filed Revision No. 72 of 1981 and the same has been dismissed by learned II Additional District Judge vide Judgment and order dated October 16,1981. The learned II Additional District Judge (respondent No. 1) has endorsed the view taken by Rent Control and Eviction Officer in its judgment and order! dated 11th September, 1981. Hari Om Agarwal, present petitioner, has challenged the aforementioned orders dated 27-5-1981 (Annexure 3). 11th September, 1981 (Annexure-2) and 16-10-1980f (Annexure-1) by filing present petition under Articles 226/227, Constitution of India. 8. A. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that Direction contained in the order of remand dated 27-5- 1981 has not been compiled with by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 treating the order of remand as final and even the issues, which were required to be decided afresh in the light of the evidence of the parties has been ignored. As already noted above, Hari Om Agarwal had filed certain evidence to prove his case on the issue that he was in possession of the shop in question with the consent of the landlord. Evidence on record was considered by Rent Control and Eviction Officer as is evident from the perusal of the order dated 23rd March, 1980 (Annexure 5 to the petition). The learned Additional District Judge while passing the order of remand dated {27th May, 1981, did not apply its mind| to the said evidence nor recorded finding on it. Apparently, the revisional order containing direction of remand required Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the issues afresh. It clearly indicates that Rent Control and Eviction Officer ought to have decided the question of consent as well as all other question which were relevant for adjudicating the rights of the parties. Apparently, the revisional order containing direction of remand required Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the issues afresh. It clearly indicates that Rent Control and Eviction Officer ought to have decided the question of consent as well as all other question which were relevant for adjudicating the rights of the parties. The authorities could not be get away by treating the revisional order of remand as final order ignoring blear direction contained in this very order for deciding the case afresh. The impugned orders (dated 11-3-1981 and 16-10-198)1 Annexure Nos. 2 and 1) are, thus, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 3 has, however, argued that the application for review (Annexure 4) was not maintainable against the order declaring vacancy and reliance has been placed on the decisions sported in 1992 (2) ARC 91 and 1992 (2) ARC 422. None of the aforesaid decisions in fact render any help to respondent No. 3. In the instant case Hari Om Agarwal has challenged the order of allotment as is evident from the perusal of the review petition (Annexure 4). This Court pointedly required and afforded opportunity to the Counsel for respondent No. 3 to satisfy from record that the order of Vacancy' and 'allotment' passed in favour of Abdul Raoof were is sued by following relevant provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is nothing to show that these orders in favour of Abdul Raoof were passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the occupant of the shop, i.e. Hari Om Agarwal. LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 3 has failed to support the order of vacancy leading to allotment in favour of Abdul Raoof. 8. FROM the perusal of order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 23rd March, 1980, it appears that Abdul Raoof obtained order of vacancy and consequent order of allotment in his favour surreptitiously without giving notice to the occupant including Hari Om Agarwal, petitioner. This Court, therefore, feels inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India and the impugned orders dated 11th September, 1981 and 16th October, 1981 (Annexures 2 and 1 to the petition) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively are set aside. 9. This Court, therefore, feels inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India and the impugned orders dated 11th September, 1981 and 16th October, 1981 (Annexures 2 and 1 to the petition) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively are set aside. 9. RESPONDENT No. 2, Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to decide the matter in compliance to the remand order dated 27th May, 1981 (Annexure 3) and-record its finding on all the relevant issues arising in the case after affording opportunity to the parties. Since the case is very old, Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide the dispute as early as possible, but in any case not beyond four months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order by either of the parties. 10. WRIT petition is allowed subject to the observations above. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.