S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 the only contesting respondent. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 are real brothers. 2. Property in dispute is ground floor portion consisting of six rooms of House No. S-2/1-C-30, situate in Mohalla Bhuvneshwar Nagar Colony, Ardali Bazaar, Varanasi. Earlier office of Food Security Programme of Government of India was tenant in the accommodation in dispute at the rent of Rs. 1,100/- per month. It vacated the premises on 20. 6. 1991. Thereafter it was released in favour of the petitioner by R. C. & E. G. , Varanasi through order dated 3. 12. 1992 (formal release order was issued on 4. 1. 1993 ). The said release order was challenged by respondent No. 1 through revision which was registered as Misc. Case No. 89 of 1993 and was accompanied by delay condonation application. The delay condonation application and the revision were dismissed in default on 4. 5. 1995 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Varanasi. Thereafter respondent No. 1 did not take any steps for restoration of the revision/delay condonation application. 3. Respondent No. 1 had also filed a review petition before R. C. & E. O. , on 12. 2. 1993 seeking review of release order dated 3. 12. 192/4. 1. 1993. 4. Meanwhile in the year 1998 petitioner had let out the accommodation in dispute to the office of Up- Nideshak (Arth Evam Sankhya), Varanasi, at the rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 5. In the year 2001 respondent No. 1 filed an allotment application before R. C. & E. O. , in the form of Rent Case No. 23 of 2001 which was rejected through order dated 12. 4. 2001 on the ground that rent being more than Rs. 2,000/- per month, matter was beyond the purview of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Thereafter respondent No. 1 filed a review application before R. C. & E. O,, on 30. 5. 2001. In the said application prayer for setting aside release order dated 3. 12. 1992 was made. 6. Review application dated 30. 5. 2001 was registered as Case No. 43 of 2001 on the file of Rent Control and Eviction Officer/additional District Magistrate (Civil and Supplies, Varanasi. R. C. & E. G. , through order dated 26. 12. 5. 2001. In the said application prayer for setting aside release order dated 3. 12. 1992 was made. 6. Review application dated 30. 5. 2001 was registered as Case No. 43 of 2001 on the file of Rent Control and Eviction Officer/additional District Magistrate (Civil and Supplies, Varanasi. R. C. & E. G. , through order dated 26. 12. 2003 allowed the review application of respondent No. 1 and set aside the earlier release order dated 3. 12. 1992 and directed the case to be put up again on 27. 1. 2004. Review application was allowed on the ground that the building was released for personal need hence it could not be let out. The objection to the effect that rent being more than Rs. 5,000/- per month hence matter was beyond the purview of Rent Control Act was brushed aside. Against the said order petitioner filed revision before District Judge, Varanasi being Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 2004. Revisional Court stayed further proceedings before R. C. & E. O. Revision was dismissed on 14. 3. 2005. Thereafter R. C. & E. O. , through order dated 9. 5. 2005 released the property in dispute in favour of respondent No. 1. At that juncture the present tenant i. e. , Up-Nideshak (Arth and Sankhya), Varanasi appeared before R. C. & E. O. and fled an application for recall of order dated 9. 5. 2005. Thereupon R. C. & E. O. , passed order on 21. 7. 2005 directing the present tenant to execute rent agreement in favour of respondent No. 1 and start paying rent to him. Copy of the said order is Annexure-17 annexed along with amendment application which has already been allowed. 7. In my opinion all the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. Firstly rent of the property in dispute being admittedly more than Rs. 5,000/- per month the Act was not applicable hence R. C. & E. O. , had no jurisdiction to pass any order. Secondly, R. C. & E. O. , meddled in the title dispute between the two brothers. This is not the scope of proceedings under Section 12/16 of the Act. 5,000/- per month the Act was not applicable hence R. C. & E. O. , had no jurisdiction to pass any order. Secondly, R. C. & E. O. , meddled in the title dispute between the two brothers. This is not the scope of proceedings under Section 12/16 of the Act. Title dispute can be decided only by Civil Court and not by R. C. & E. O. Thirdly, earlier building had been released in favqur of the petitioner and the said order was not set aside even though respondent No. 1 filed review in the year 1993 as well as revision in the same year. As respondent No. 3 had challenged the release order of 3. 12. 1992 in 1993 hence he was quite aware of the same. Accordingly review filed after about 9 years i. e. , in the year 2001 was clearly barred by time. R. C. & E. O. , could not pass contrary order and held respondent No. 1 to be landlord. Fourthly, R. C. & E. O. , has got absolutely no jurisdiction to direct the payment of rent to a particular person. Admittedly petitioner inducted the new tenant hence the new tenant was rightly paying the rent to the petitioner. 8. In fact respondent No. 1 wanted to raise title dispute and get it decided by R. C. & E. O. This is not the jurisdiction of R. C. & E. O. 9. Learned Counsel for both the parties have stated that a title suit was also filed in the form of O. S. No. 73 of 1980 by respondent No. 1 which was decreed against which Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2004 is pending before the District Judge, Varanasi. Let the title dispute be decided in the said appeal. However, it is clarified that the Appellate Court, wile deciding the rival claims, shall not give any weight to the fact the building was release in favour of petitioner. 10. Appellate Court may decide the appeal very expeditiously. 11. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. All the impugned orders passed by R. C. & E. O. , are set aside. Petition allowed. .