JUDGMENT Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.12.1992 (Annexure No. 10) passed by the District Judge, Dehradun whereby the learned District Judge has decided Rent Control Revision No. 57 of 1990 Anand Prakash Agarwal Vs. R.C. & E.O. Mussoorie and Rent Control Revision No. 60 of 1990, Prof. S.C. Kapoor Vs. Inderpal Singh Sahney by a common judgment and allowed both the revisions, the order of allotment dated 29.3.1990 in favour of Inderpal Singh Sahney was quashed and the case was remitted to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Mussoorie for fresh allotment proceedings, as mentioned in the impugned order. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that according to the petitioner, the premises in question is known as Scottsburn Estate, Landour Cantt. Mussoorie, District Dehradun is an old construction and such comes within the purview of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act 1972 (for short the Act) and Major A.J. Hartley is the owner of the premises in question. 3. Proceedings for declaration of vacancy and for allotment in respect of the said property were initiated on an application dated 20.2.1987 moved by the petitioner with a prayer for allotment. The premises in question is a residential accommodation and by the petitioner the application was made as he had no other residential accommodation in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is residing in a commercial accommodation. A copy of the application dated 20.2.1987 is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The application moved by the petitioner was registered as Rent Case No. 44 of 1988 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (for short R.C. & E.O.), who in turn directed the Rent Control Inspector to make spot inspection of the premises in question and submit his report. The Rent Control Inspector after having complied with Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act submitted his report on 7.5.1988 stating therein that the premises in question was in unauthorized occupation of the respondent no. 3 and therefore, it is liable to be declared vacant under Section 12 of the Act. The report of Rent Control Inspector is Annexure No. 2. 3 and therefore, it is liable to be declared vacant under Section 12 of the Act. The report of Rent Control Inspector is Annexure No. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the date fixed in the case for allotment proceedings was 13.12.1989 but the petitioner or his counsel had no prior intimation of the date fixed in the case. Consequently, the application for allotment was decided ex-parte on 13.12.1989 against the petitioner and his application for allotment was dismissed. On 20.12.1989 application for recall of ex-parte order dated 13.12.1989 was moved by the petitioner showing sufficient reasons for his default on 13.12.1989 before the respondent no. 2. The said application was allowed vide order dated 4.1.1990 and the order dated 13.12.1989 was recalled. The petitioner had filed an affidavit asserting therein that the respondent no. 5 is the owner of the premises in question and the same was originally tenanted by Shri B.D. Manak. It was also stated that Prof. S.C. Kapoor had come into possession through Shri B.D. Manak. The respondent no. 3 S.C. Kapoor had not obtained order of allotment and his occupation in the premises in question was unauthorized. The affidavit dated 18.1.1990 is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. After considering the material and evidence on record, the R.C. & E.O. vide his judgment and order dated 1.3.1990 held that the property in dispute was vacant within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act. Accordingly by order dated 1.3.1990, the premises in question was declared as vacant vide Annexure No. 5. After declaration of the vacancy of the accommodation in question, notices under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act were issued to all the concerned parties and applications for release/allotment were also invited by the R.C. & E.O. Apart from the petitioner, other applicants/prospective allottees moved application for allotment. Ultimately, the premises in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 29.3.1990. Copy of order is annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the R.C. & E.O., the respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 filed separate revisions before the District Judge Dehradun which were registered as R.C. Revision Nos. 69 of 1990 and 57 of 1990 respectively in the Court of the District Judge. 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the R.C. & E.O., the respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 filed separate revisions before the District Judge Dehradun which were registered as R.C. Revision Nos. 69 of 1990 and 57 of 1990 respectively in the Court of the District Judge. Both the revisions were clubbed together and have been decided by a common judgment and order dated 8.12.1992 thereby both the revisions were allowed and the order of allotment dated 29.3.1990 passed by the R.C. & E.O. was quashed and the matter was remanded to the R.C. and E.O. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Judge Dehradun, the petitioner has come up in writ petition before this Court inter alia on the ground that the revisions filed on the behest of the respondent nos. 3 Prof. S.C. Kapoor and respondent no. 4 Anand Prakash Agarwal were not maintainable inasmuch as the order declaring vacancy under Section 12 of the Act is not an order which can be revised under Section 18 of the said Act. It has also been contended that the revisional court has placed much reliance upon Rule 32 of the Rules framed under the Act and has completely ignored the provisions of Rule 22 (a) and 22 (f) of the Rules. It has also been contended that under the provisions of these Rules an order dismissing an application for allotment in default could be recalled on sufficient cause having been shown and in fact the order dated 13.12.1989 was recalled in the interest of justice. It is also contended that the order dated 4.1.1990 could have been passed in exercise of the powers under Rule 22(a) and 22(f) of the Rules, but the learned District Judge while passing the impugned order has ignored the provisions of Rule 22 (a) & (f). It has been contended that the order passed by the learned District Judge is wholly illegal, arbitrary as well as without jurisdiction, therefore, the judgment and order dated 8.12.1992 being manifestly erroneous is liable to be quashed and the order dated 29.3.1990 is liable to stand revived. 6. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Sri A. Rab had appeared in the case on several dates, but today, he is not present in the Court, although the list has been revised thrice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 at length and perused the record including the impugned order and the averments made in the counter affidavit. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4 it has been stated that he had taken possession of the premises in question some time in or around the year 1947 and since then he continues to be in possession without any interruption and in the knowledge of the owner of the property till 1981 and in 1981, the respondent no. 3 S.C. Kapoor and his wife Smt. Boni Kapoor intended to purchase the said property, therefore, an agreement was executed by late Sri Anand Prakash Aggarwal and Sri S.C. Kapoor for transfer of the premises in question for a consideration of Rs. 55,000 and he had handed over the possession to the respondent no. 3 in 1981. 9. It is not disputed that no sale deed had been executed in favour of respondent no. 4. On the basis of adverse possession, he claimed that his rights had matured earlier and then he executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent no. 4 and in allotment proceedings, compliance of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules framed under the Act was not made by the Rent Control Inspector and the R.C. and E.O. respectively. It is not disputed that the owner of the premises in question was Major A.J. Hartley, but he did not prefer any revision and according to the respondent no. 3, he is living out of the country. 10. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the R.C. & E.O. and the revisional court and also perused the counter affidavits filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 11. 3, he is living out of the country. 10. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the R.C. & E.O. and the revisional court and also perused the counter affidavits filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 11. It comes out from a perusal of the affidavits that the controversy involved in the writ petition are (1) whether the ex-parte order which was recalled by the R.C. & E.O. is without jurisdiction and in recalling the order, the R.C. & E.O. committed jurisdictional error and (2) Whether the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules framed under the Act shall be applicable for recalling ex-parte order. 12. Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act provides the powers to be exercised by the Prescribed Authority or the appellate or revising authority under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Rule 22(a) and Rule 22(f) of the Rules reads as under :- 22. Powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Section 34(1)(g)]- The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or the appellate or revising authority shall, for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under the Act, shall have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely - (a) the power to dismiss an application, appeal or revision for default and to restore it for sufficient cause, (b) the power to proceed ex parte and to set aside, for sufficient cause, an order passed ex parte; (c) xxx xxx (f) the power referred to in Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to make any order for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the authority concerned. 13. Rule 32 of the Rules deals with the application for setting aside an ex parte order or for restoration under the Act, which reads as below. 32. 13. Rule 32 of the Rules deals with the application for setting aside an ex parte order or for restoration under the Act, which reads as below. 32. Application for setting aside an ex parte order or for restoration [Sections 34(8) and 41] - The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or the appellate or revising authority, as the case may be, may for sufficient cause - (a) set aside an ex parte order deciding an application for the determination of a dispute under Section 8 or for the determination of standard rent under Section 9 or for the release of any building or specified part thereof or any land appurtenant to such building under Section 21 or for allotment of a new building sub-section (2) of Section 24 or for restoration of any amenity under sub-section (1) of Section 27 or for major repairs under sub-section (4) of Section 28 or an appeal under Section 10, or Section 22 or a revision under Section 18; (b) restore an application or an appeal or revision referred to in clause (a) as well as an application, for release of any building or part thereof or any land appurtenant to such building where such application or appeal or revision has been dismissed for default of appearance of the applicant or the appellant or revisionist, as the case may be, or his counsel. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the revisional court has committed manifest error of law by relying upon the Rule 32 aforesaid. It has been contended that the provisions of Rule 32 are attracted only when any application for setting aside an ex parte order deciding an application for determination of a dispute regarding standard rent or for the determination of standard rent under Section 9 or for release of any building or for allotment of a new building is made. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Revisional Court had wrongly addressed itself to the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules, which were not the subject-matter for determination in the revision. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Revisional Court had wrongly addressed itself to the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules, which were not the subject-matter for determination in the revision. It was contended that the learned District Judge while deciding the revision completely lost sight of Rule 22 and did not consider the provisions of Rule 22(a) and Rule 22(f) referred to above, which were fully applicable because the application for allotment moved by the petitioner was dismissed in default by the R.C. & E.O. vide his order dated 13.12.1989 as none appeared for and on behalf of the applicant before the R.C. & E.O. It was contended that by order dated 4.1.1990, the order-dated 13.12.1989 was set aside in the interest of justice by the R.C. & E.O. 15. I have given my anxious thought to the observations made by the learned District judge in the impugned order. It has been observed by the District Judge that "although it is not mentioned in the alleged restoration application Ka/19 dated 20.12.89 that under what provision of the Act it has been moved but if at all, it could have been moved under clause (b) of Rule 32 of the said Rules, but it could have been restored to its original number had it been an application as referred to in clause (a) of Rule 32. However, it is not such application and as such could not have been restored by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer by setting aside the order dated 13.12.89. If the said application could not have been restored to its original number, there was no application of Sri Sahney for allotment pending on the date of allotment and the allotment order as such could not have been passed in favour of Sri Sahney on 29.3.1990. Thus at the time of allotment there being no allotment application on behalf of Sri Sahney, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not have allotted the same in his favour and since he has so allotted, he has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law and further he has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and that material irregularity. Thus the allotment order dated 29.3.90 suffers from a jurisdictional error, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer having exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law and the same is liable to be quashed in these revisional proceedings." The District Judge has reproduced the order-sheet dated 13.12.1989 at the foot of page 15 of the impugned order as under :- "The file has been put up. Case called out. The learned counsel for the landlord is present. The applicant is absent. None of his Pairokar is even present. Therefore, it is ordered that allotment application is dismissed in default. Let the record be consigned to the record room." 16. Admittedly under Section 34 of the Act, powers have been conferred upon the R.C. & E.O. as that of a Civil Court under the C.P.C. and dismissal of the application moved by the petitioner is squarely covered by the provision of Rule 22(a) of the Rules framed under the Act. It is pertinent to note that under Rule 22(b), the R.C. & E.O. has power to proceed ex parte and to set aside, for sufficient cause, an order passed ex parte and under sub-rule (f) of Rule 22, he may exercise power referred to in Section 151 and 152 of the C.P.C. to make any order for the ends of justice. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act are applicable to the premises in question. The report of the Rent Control Inspector was obtained under Rule 8 of the Rules for ascertaining the vacancy and after obtaining the report from the Rent Control Inspector, the R.C. & E.O. the procedure as laid down under Rule 9 was followed and the notices were sent to the parties concerned. The order passed by the R.C. & E.O. shows that Sri S.C. Kapoor (respondent no. 3) refused to take the notice. Ultimately vacancy was declared by the R.C. & E.O. by a detailed order dated 1.3.1990. The order declaring the vacancy goes to show that despite information, the respondent no. 3 did not appear before the R.C. & E.O. to contest the proceedings. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has submitted that the learned District Judge has passed a remand order, therefore, the petitioner has full opportunity to participate in the allotment proceedings afresh, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 3 did not appear before the R.C. & E.O. to contest the proceedings. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has submitted that the learned District Judge has passed a remand order, therefore, the petitioner has full opportunity to participate in the allotment proceedings afresh, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arvind Vashist has submitted that if the findings recorded by the District Judge are allowed to stand as it is, then it will mean that the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the allotment proceedings there being no application for allotment moved by the petitioner, therefore, the remand order is absolutely prejudicial to the petitioner because in the operative portion of the order, liberty has not been given to the petitioner to participate in the allotment proceedings afresh before the R.C. & E.O. in the remand order. Learned counsel submitted that on this account also, the petitioner had to file the present writ petition. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 lastly contended that he was not given the notice for filing the objection by the R.C. and E.O. According to the respondent no. 4, admittedly, he was out of possession on that date when the inspection of the premises in suit was made by the Rent Control Inspector. According to respondent no. 4 himself, he had delivered possession of the accommodation to respondent no. 3, S.C. Kapoor. It comes out from a perusal of the application for allotment moved by the petitioner that Smt. And Sri S.C. Kapoor were in unauthorized occupation of the building in suit since 1981 and the notice was issued to him, who refused to accept the notice, therefore, he was served by refusal. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 is misconceived. 19. Having considered the provisions of Rule 22(a) of the Rules framed under the Act vis-a-vis the order of dismissal of application for allotment dated 13.12.1989, it leaves no iota of doubt to hold that the order dated 13.12.1989 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was set aside by a subsequent order dated 4.1.1990, which too was fully passed under Rule 22(f) of the said Rules framed under the Act. Thus, on 4.1.1990 the application for allotment moved by the petitioner stood legally restored, therefore, the finding of the District Judge Dehradun that on 29.3.1990, there was no application for allotment on behalf of the petitioner Sri Inder Pal Singh Sahney is without jurisdiction and not tenable. The District Judge has entirely lost sight of the provisions of Rule 22 while dealing with the matter of dismissal of application for default and its restoration by the R.C. & E.O. 20. The cumulative effect of the entire discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the relevant provisions of Rules referred to above is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was fully within his competence to pass an order of dismissal of application in default of the party under Rule 22(a) of the Rules and he has recalled the dismissal order dated 13.12.1989 by a legal order dated 4.1.1990 under Rule 22(b) read with Rule 22(f) of the Rule read with Section 34(1)(g) of the Act, therefore, I hold that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has passed the order dated 4.1.1990 in accordance with law and there is no perversity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order. In this view of the matter, the findings as recorded by the District Judge while allowing the revisions filed by the respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 referred to above are perverse and unsustainable in law. Both the questions are answered accordingly. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The judgment and order dated 8.12.1992 passed by the District Judge Dehradun under challenge is set aside. The judgment and order of allotment dated 29.3.1990 passed by the R.C. and E.O. is liable to be maintained. 22. The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order of the revisional court dated 8.12.1990 is set aside. The order of allotment dated 29.3.1990 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Mussoorie is upheld. No order as to costs. Interim order dated 30.3.1993 is vacated. All applications stand disposed of.