ORDER : S.N. Variava, J. - Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties in detail. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: under the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared vacancy in respect of the suit premises on 6-11-2000. Against the order declaring vacancy, the respondent filed a writ petition which came to be dismissed on 16-11-2000. Against the order of dismissal, the respondent filed a special leave petition which was dismissed on 11-1-2002. Thus, the declaration of vacancy has become final. 4. The appellant had, in the meantime, filed an application for release of the premises in his favour. Initially, the respondent filed a transfer application which came to be dismissed on 3-1-2001. Thereafter, on 19-1-2001, a release order came to be passed in favour of the appellant. 5. On such release order being passed, there were two remedies available to the respondent. He could have either filed a review under Section 16(5) of the Act or he could have filed a revision challenging the release order. The respondent chose to file a revision. That revision came to be dismissed on 25-1-2001. The operative part of the order dismissing the revision reads as follows: "In view of Rameshwar Dayal Sagar v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, (1992) 1 APC 457 the revision is not maintainable. In the said citation it is observed that the order declaring the vacancy has become final insofar as the petitioner is concerned and it cannot be agitated now in these proceedings. In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be treated to be a person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 16(1) at whose instance the revision under Section 16 of the Act could be filed. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. The facts and law of the said case apply to the present facts of the case and thus the revisionist has no locus standi and revision is summarily dismissed." 6. After the revision was dismissed, the respondent filed an application for review of the order dated 19-1-2001. The appellant therefore filed a revision claiming that a review was not maintainable. That revision was dismissed. After the revision was dismissed, the respondent filed an application for review of the order dated 19-1-2001. The appellant therefore filed a revision claiming that a review was not maintainable. That revision was dismissed. A writ petition challenging the order of dismissal has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 22-3-2001. Both the orders i.e. the order passed in the revision as well as the impugned order, hold that as the review is pending, it should be allowed to take its natural course. In our view, this reasoning cannot be sustained. Once a party decides to challenge an order before a higher forum and his appeal or revision is dismissed by the higher forum on merits, then no question arises for filing a review of the order which has been affirmed by the higher forum. Once the respondent's revision against the order dated 19-1-2001 was dismissed on merits, no question arose of filing a review of the order dated 19-1-2001. Such a review is clearly not maintainable and must be dismissed as such. 7. Faced with this situation it was submitted that the revision against the order dated 19-1-2001 was dismissed not on merits but on the ground that it was not maintainable. We have reproduced above the operative portion of the order dismissing the revision. Undoubtedly, there is a comment that the revision is not maintainable. But the latter portion of the order clearly indicates that the revision was dismissed also on merits. It is stated in the order that the vacancy has become final and that the respondent had no locus standi to challenge the release order and that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. This shows that the revision has been dismissed on merits also. The revision having been dismissed on merits, the review is clearly not maintainable. 8. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh, (2000) 6 SCC 694 . In this case a question whether or not a declaration of vacancy can be agitated in a revision petition has been referred to a larger Bench. In our view, this decision has no relevance to the issue before us. In this case, the vacancy has become final inasmuch as the special leave petition was dismissed on 11-1-2002. The question of challenging the vacancy no longer arises. 9. In our view, this decision has no relevance to the issue before us. In this case, the vacancy has become final inasmuch as the special leave petition was dismissed on 11-1-2002. The question of challenging the vacancy no longer arises. 9. In the aforesaid view, we set aside the impugned order as well as the order in revision against which the writ petition has been filed. The review petition will stand dismissed. 10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 11. At the request of the learned counsel for the respondent, time is given till 10-7-2003 to vacate the premises subject to the respondent filing the usual undertaking in this Court within a period of four weeks from today.