ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord challenges the order passed by the revisional court/ Additional District and sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 16th January, 2003, copy whereof is annexed as annexure-i to the writ petition, whereby revision filed by the respondent-tenant has been allowed the matter was remanded back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to record a finding with regard to the applicability of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 to the accommodation in question. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the present case are that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1970 and it was occupied by tenant, namely Anand Kumar alias Anand Prakash, as described in Writ petition No. 41556 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998, respondent no. 2 in this petition. The landlord-petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short the Act) before the prescribed authority for the release of the aforesaid accommodation in question in his favour, which was dismissed by the prescribed authority. Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority, the landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 18th November, 1997. The appellate court vide its order directed that the shop in dispute be released in favour of the landlord. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 Anand Kumar filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41556 of 1997 against the order of the appellate court. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, one Pankaj Kumar filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that Anand Kumar has unauthorisedly occupied the shop in dispute, which is under law vacant and therefore the same may be declared vacant and may be allotted in his favour. The Rent Control Inspector visited the shop in dispute and submitted a report, on the basis thereof the Rent Control and Eviction officer declared that the shop in dispute is vacant by order dated 19th June, 1998. Tenant Anand kumar aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998. Tenant Anand kumar aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998. ( 3 ) BOTH these writ petitions, namely Writ Petition No. 41556 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998 came up for hearing before this Court and were heard and decided by this Court vide order dated 6th May, 2002, whereby Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998 has been dismissed holding that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1970 and that the possession of anand Kumar, the tenant over the shop in dispute is without any allotment order, thus the possession of Anand Kumar is that of unauthorised occupant. This Court held that the shop in dispute is under law vacant and the vacancy has rightly been declared by the Rent Control and eviction Officer. So far as Writ Petition No. 41556 of 1997 is concerned, it has been finally disposed of holding that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable, as the accommodation shall be deemed to be vacant. ( 4 ) IT is contended that after the vacancy was upheld by the judgment of this Court in Writ petition No. 27849 of 1998. the landlord-petitioner filed an application for release of the shop in dispute in his favour under Section 16 of the Act, this application of the landlord-petitioner was allowed and accommodation was released in his favour by order dated 9th October, 1998, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, tenant Anand Kumar aggrieved by the order dated 9th October, 1998 filed a revision before the revisional authority, who vide order impugned in the present writ petition, allowed the revision and remanded back the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with the direction to re-determine whether the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were applicable or not and whether the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1970 or not? It is averred in this writ petition that certified copy of the judgment of this Court dated 6th May, 2002, whereby earlier two writ petitions were decided, was filed by the landlord before the revisional court and in the written statement it has been submitted by the tenant that the vacancy has been upheld by this Court, but the revisional court took it casually and observed that no written statement was filed on behalf of the landlord and only submissions were made. It has not been referred by the revisional authority that the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998 was produced by the landlord and remanded back the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. ( 5 ) FROM the facts narrated above and a perusal of the judgment of this Court dated 6th May, 2002, it transpires that the question of vacancy cannot be re-agitated which has already been adjudicated, as once the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that Anand Kumar was occupying the shop in dispute without any authority or allotment order, therefore in view of the decision of Apex Court in Nutan Kumar and Ors. v. IInd Additional District Judge and Ors. 2003 (1) AWC 213 (SC) : 2003 (1) SCCD 71 : 2002 (2) ARC 645, the occupation of Anand Kumar, the tenant was illegal or that of unauthorised occupant. It is submitted that in view of Full Bench decision in Talib Hasan and Anr. v. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital and Ors. 1986 (1)ARC 1, tenant Anand Kumar, who has been adjudicated upon to be an unauthorised occupant, has no say in the matter of release, which is exclusively between the Rent Control and Eviction officer and the landlord and that being the position of law, the revision filed by tenant-respondent, namely, Anand Kumar before the revisional authority was not maintainable and the view taken by the revisional court is contrary to the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. In this view of the matter, order passed by the revisional court dated 16th january, 2003 deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. ( 6 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 16th January, 2003, passed by the revisional court, Annexure-i to the writ petition, is quashed. . .