JUDGMENT HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the revisional court dated 14.9.2009, Annexure-7 to the writ petition passed in Rent Revision No. 4 of 2000. 3. It appears that the petitioner made an application for allotment of the premises in dispute on the ground that one Kailash Chand Dixit was the landlord who died in 1991 and the tenant living in the said accommodation has shifted to another place, therefore, there is a vacancy and after declaring the vacancy, the same should be allotted to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after calling for the report from the Supply Inspector dated 24.3.1995 after inspection, passed an order of allotment of the said premises in favour of the petitioner and on 18.5.1995 it was allotted in his favour. It appears that the respondent who is son of Kailash Chand Dixit was living outside the country. When it came to his knowledge, he made an application on 10.4.1996 that he was living abroad as such he had no knowledge regarding the aforesaid proceeding and therefore, the order of vacancy and allotment is bad in law and it is to be set aside. 4. The revisional court after considering the issues has allowed the revision by its judgement and order dated 14.9.2009 setting aside the order dated 5.5.1995 and 18.5.1995 by which the vacancy was declared and subsequently the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complete procedure was adopted and there was a publication in the newspaper and it is an admitted case that the respondent was living abroad, therefore, there was no question of any service and admittedly, the tenant was occupying the premises and shifted to another place, therefore there was no option to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to allot the said premises after declaring the vacancy. The belated revision filed by the respondent has been allowed. The belated revision filed by the respondent has been allowed. Further submission has been made that in case the order of allotment is set aside in view of order under Section 18 (3) of the Act, if such order is passed, the possession will be either with the earlier tenant or with the authorities and it cannot be with the respondent. 6. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent has also admitted that in view of present fact and in view of Section 18 of the Act, it will be appropriate that the matter be reconsidered again as a fresh in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of view that this writ petition can be disposed of finally setting aside the order dated 14.9.2009 only to the extent of the order of allotment. Therefore, order of allotment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the revision as fresh only considering the claim of the respondent regarding release of the accommodation in dispute after affording full opportunity to the respondent. This exercise shall be done by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within a period of three months. It is also made clear that the petitioner will not be ejected from the premises in dispute till the decision is taken by the Rent Control and Eviction officer on the question of release of the accommodation. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. No order is passed as to costs.