B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE premises in dispute is a portion of House No. 128/2 Block c. Kidwai Nagar. Kanpur nagar. It was declared vacant on 3. 9. 1998, vide order Annexure-12 passed by the Rent Control officer, Kanpur. It was allotted to the petitioner on 11. 9. 1998. ( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 2 is the landlord of the premises, who challenged the order of the allotment, dated 11. 9. 1998 in a revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Act, XI11 of 1972 being revision No. 22/99. The said revision has been allowed by the order, dated 4. 4. 2001 by the XIIth additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Against that order, the petitioner has preferred this petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri Shashi Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party and have perused the record. ( 4 ) IT is contended that before declaring vacancy a notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2, which is Annexure-5 to the petition. This notice was served on the wife of the opposite party No. 2 by refusal. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 appeared before Rent Control Officer on 16. 1. 1998 and moved an application, through counsel, for time to file objections Annexure-7 to the petition. The VAKALATNAAMA of Sri Awadesh Kumar, Advocate was also filed, annexure-8 to the petition. That, thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 absented. Therefore, the allotment order was passed. That there was no manipulation in obtaining the orders and sufficient time for hearing was provided and long dates were fixed. ( 5 ) IT has been argued that revisional court has erred in ignoring all these documents and allowing the revision. It has been further argued that the revisional court has travelled beyond its limits and it could not have entered on the question of facts. That opposite party No. 2 should have filed an application under clause (5) of Section 16 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. for the review. In that application, the facts regarding service of notice could have been considered. That the opposite party No. 2 has wrongly availed the remedy of revision and, therefore, the order of revisional court is fit to be quashed. ( 6 ) I have considered the arguments. for the review. In that application, the facts regarding service of notice could have been considered. That the opposite party No. 2 has wrongly availed the remedy of revision and, therefore, the order of revisional court is fit to be quashed. ( 6 ) I have considered the arguments. In this case, there are certain other important facts. The opposite party No. 2 is admittedly the landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed SCC Suit No. 370/88 for eviction and arrears of rent against the erstwhile tenant Sri H. K. Verma. The suit was contested by Sri H. K. Verma and after several years, the parties entered into a compromise on 5. 12. 1994 and the tenant agreed to vacate the house in a month. The compromise decree was not complied with by Sri H. K. Verma. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 applied for execution of the decree being execution No. 10/98. In that execution, the Amin went to deliver the possession but found the petitioner in actual possession of the house. ( 7 ) THE opposite party No. 2 was contesting the suit since 1988 and was prosecuting the execution proceedings against the tenant Sri H. K. Verma. In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner obtained allotment order after declaration of the vacancy. The execution case No. 10/98 was filed against the tenant Sri H. K. Verma. He was never ejected in the execution nor there is any document that he voluntarily delivered the possession. Therefore, there was no vacancy. In the circumstances, it appears that the entire proceedings for declaration of vacancy and allotment was collusive with Sri H. K. Verma, the old tenant. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the notice was property served on the opposite party No. 2 and he moved an application before the Rent Control Officer and also filed vakalat-NAAMA. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the circumstances, the fraud is apparent and there is no reason to interfere in the order of the revisional court. It may also be mentioned that the vacancy could also be challenged in a revision under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, it was optional for the opposite party No. 2 to apply for the review of the order under Section 16 (5) of the Act or to file the revision against the order. It may also be mentioned that the vacancy could also be challenged in a revision under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, it was optional for the opposite party No. 2 to apply for the review of the order under Section 16 (5) of the Act or to file the revision against the order. The order of revision cannot be set aside for the reason that application for review under Section 16 (5) of the Act was not moved. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, the revision is without merit. It is therefore, dismissed, the interim order is vacated. However, it is made clear that proceedings for declaration of the vacancy and for release/ allotment may be started again, if considered necessary by the Rent Control Officer in accordance with law notwithstanding any observation made In the body of this Judgment. ( 11 ) THE petition is accordingly dispose of. .