R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24. 5. 1998 whereby the building No. 113/68 (residential), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, consisting of three rooms etc. has been declared vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. ( 3 ) IT appears that originally Mr. W. G. Gogte, the father of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and husband of petitioner No. 3, was the tenant of the said building, who died leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. The petitioners who have been living in the building in question after his death, inherited the tenancy but it was in the year 1996 that an intimation of vacancy is alleged to have been given by the petitioner No. 1 as the petitioners were going to vacate the building in question as they wanted to shift to Indore. An application for allotment was also filed by one Dr. Vijay Kumar Dwivedi. On the aforesaid Intimation and application, proceedings under Sections 16/12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short the Act), were initiated. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to Inspect the building in question and to submit the report. Thereafter, notices are stated to have been Issued to the parties. On receipt of notice, an objection was filed by the petitioners contending that they have never given any intimation of vacancy and rent was regularly being paid by them to the landlord. The building in question was thus vacant. The Rent Control Inspector, thereafter made local inspection of the building and also examined witnesses of the locality and recorded the statements of local witnesses and submitted his report dated 13. 11. 1996 with the observation that prima facie the building in question was vacant for the reasons recorded by him in his report. On receipt of the said report, notices were issued to the parties. 11. 1996 with the observation that prima facie the building in question was vacant for the reasons recorded by him in his report. On receipt of the said report, notices were issued to the parties. The petitioners filed objection contending that no Intimation of vacancy was given to them, they were in occupation of the building and rent was being paid by them. In the meanwhile, landlord also made an application for release of the building. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after going through the evidence on record passed the order dated 24. 9. 1998 declaring the building in question as vacant in exercise of power under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the Act. Hence, the present petition. ( 4 ) ON the writ petition, it was on 24. 10. 1998 the following order was passed by this Court : "issue notice to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only who may file counter-affidavit within three weeks from the date service of notice. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed within ten days thereafter. List this petition for admission in the week commencing from, 14. 12. 1998. Till next date of listing, proceedings for release/allotment may go on. however, final orders passed therein shall not be given effect to. " ( 5 ) THE contesting respondents on receipt of notices filed counter-affidavit in reply of which rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. As desired by the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the case at this stage finally. ( 6 ) IT was on 17. 8. 2000 following order was passed : "rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner be taken on record. Interim order dated 24. 10. 1998 is modified to the extent that petitioner shall deposit the amount of arrear of rent within a period of three weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar, failing which the interim order dated 24. 10. 1998 fshall stand automatically vacated. " ( 7 ) THE building in question, on the application filed by the landlord, was released in favour of the landlord on 15. 3. 1999. Against the release order. It was stated that a revision was filed which was dismissed by the revisional authority. The order passed by the revisional authority has become final. 1998 fshall stand automatically vacated. " ( 7 ) THE building in question, on the application filed by the landlord, was released in favour of the landlord on 15. 3. 1999. Against the release order. It was stated that a revision was filed which was dismissed by the revisional authority. The order passed by the revisional authority has become final. In the rejoinder-affidavit, only it has been stated that the said order Is being challenged in the present petition. The petitioner has not filed any other writ petition challenging the order passed by the revisional authority nor made any application for amendment of the present petition challenging the validity of the release order dated 15. 3. 1999. On behalf of contesting respondent, as stated, a counter-affidavit has been filed controverting the facts stated in the writ petition and asserting that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was quite valid and that the order passed by the revisional authority has became final. It has also been stated that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of rent within the time prescribed by this Court by order dated 17. 8. 2000 and extended by further orders, therefore, he cannot take advantage of the Interim orders passed by this Court. In reply of the said affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act are mandatory. In the present case. Rent Control and Eviction Officer has failed to comply with the provisions of the said Rule and failed to record the statement of two witnesses of the same locality. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the report of the Rent Control Inspector and order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It was urged that the building in question was inspected in presence of two witnesses of the locality, namely, Prakash Dixit son of Ganga Mahesh Dixit. resident of 112/369, Swaroop Nagar. Kanpur Nagar and Chandra Kumar Shukla, son of late madan Mohan Shukla, resident of 112/172, Benajhabhar, Kanpur, which is on the other side of the road in the same locality, where the building in question is situated, therefore, the report of the Rent Control Inspector was quite valid. resident of 112/369, Swaroop Nagar. Kanpur Nagar and Chandra Kumar Shukla, son of late madan Mohan Shukla, resident of 112/172, Benajhabhar, Kanpur, which is on the other side of the road in the same locality, where the building in question is situated, therefore, the report of the Rent Control Inspector was quite valid. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that against the order of release a revision was filed by the petitioners, which was also dismissed. The order of vacancy declaring the building in question as vacant, thus, merged in the order of the revisional authority, which has become final and the writ petition was, therefore, incompetent and was liable to be dismissed as the order passed in the revision has not been challenged. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 10 ) THERE is no doubt that the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the rules framed under the Act are mandatory. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Apex Court In Dr. Smt. Keshav Devi v. Girdhari Lal Pahwa and others, AIR 1987 SC 22 , and another decision of this Court in Shanker Lal v. IInd Additional District Judge, bulandshahr and others, 1978 ARC 398. From the material on record, it is apparent that the procedure prescribed for allotment/release was fully followed and the building in question was inspected after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules. In the present case, on receipt of the Intimation of vacancy, allotment proceedings were Initiated. The building was got inspected through the Rent Control Inspector. The Inspector, after giving notices to the parties, which were duly served upon them, Inspected the building and submitted his report to the effect that prima facie the building in question was vacant for the reasons recorded by him in his report. Parties filed evidence in support of their cases and thereafter the case has been decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record. The building in question was declared vacant, therefore, submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to the contrary, cannot be accepted. Parties filed evidence in support of their cases and thereafter the case has been decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record. The building in question was declared vacant, therefore, submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to the contrary, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent was also right in his submission that the order of release has become final as the validity of the revisional order was not challenged by the petitioners before this Court by filing a separate petition or by filing an application for amendment in the present case, thus, the order declaring the vacancy has merged in the order of release. ( 11 ) FURTHER, the petitioners have failed to comply with the order passed by this Court and to deposit the amount in question within the time prescribed Initially and extended by this Court subsequently, therefore, they cannot take advantage of the Interim order passed by this Court as the same stood automatically vacated. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had jurisdiction to proceed with the case and to release the same in accordance with law. which was accordingly released by the order dated 15. 3. 1999, as stated above. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. ( 12 ) THE writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. .