JUDGMENT D.P. SINGH, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajit for the contesting respondent No.3. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge allowing the rent revision of the contesting respondent. 3. There is no dispute that. the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are owners and landlords of shop No. 1806/2001 which was earlier in the tenancy of one Rajiv Kumar who vacated it in May, 1997 and the vacancy was duly intimated to the District Magistrate by the landlords. The contesting respondent made an application for allotment of the said shop together with respondent No.4. The landlords filed their nomination in favour of the contesting respondent No.3, however, the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 16.9.2002 ignored the nomination of the petitioner and allotted it to respondent No.4. The contesting respondent No.3 challenged the said order through a revision under section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Revision No. 4 of 2002. The said revision has been allowed and the disputed shop has been allotted in favour of the respondent No. 3 by the revisional authority and it has further directed the Rent Controller to issue form 'D' in his favour which is under challenge in this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the revisional authority does not possess the power to make allotment in view of explanation to sub-section 2 of section 18 of the Act. For ready reference under section 18 is quoted below: "[18. Appeal against order of allotment or release.-(1) No appeal shall lie from any order under section 16 or section 19, whether made before or after the commencement of this section, but any person aggrieved by a final order under any of the said sections may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer a revision to the District Judge on anyone or more of the following grounds, namely- . (a) that the District Magistrate has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law; . (b) that the District Magistrate has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law;. (c) that the District Magistrate has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (a) that the District Magistrate has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law; . (b) that the District Magistrate has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law;. (c) that the District Magistrate has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) The revising authority may confirm or rescind the final order made under sub-section (1) or may remand the case to the District Magistrate for rehearing, and pending the revision, may stay the operation of such order on such terms, if any, as it thinks fit. Explanation.-The power to rescind the final order this sub-section shall not include the power to pass an allotment order or to direct the passing of an allotment order in favour of a person different from the allottee mentioned in the order under revision. (3) Where an order under section 16 or section 19 is rescinded, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made to him on that behalf, place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such order or such part thereof as has been rescinded, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary]." 5. A bare perusal of the explanation to sub-section 2 shows that the District Magistrate cannot either himself pass an order of allotment or direct passing of an allotment order. Thus, the order of the District Magistrate directing allotment in favour of the respondent No.3 was not justified and accordingly, the argument is bound to be accepted. 6. It is then urged that the revisional authority has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner so far as the allotment to the respondent No.3 is concerned and also that he had withdrawn his nomination earlier in his favour. 7. In the objection before the revisional authority the petitioner had clearly stated that he had withdrawn the nomination given earlier in favour of respondent No.3 in view of the fact that he had lodged false criminal cases against him. The revisional authority has not at all considered even this aspect of the case. 8. 7. In the objection before the revisional authority the petitioner had clearly stated that he had withdrawn the nomination given earlier in favour of respondent No.3 in view of the fact that he had lodged false criminal cases against him. The revisional authority has not at all considered even this aspect of the case. 8. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned revisional order dated 14.1.2009 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer who will decide the issue afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.