S. U. KHAN, J. At the time of hearing no one appeared for the contesting respondents. 2. Notices to the proposed legal representatives of respondent No. 4 were directed to be issued through order dated 25. 9. 2008. Thereafter, steps were taken. As per office report dated 4. 11. 2008 service upon them was sufficient still no one appeared on their behalf also. 3. According to the petitioner, initially building in dispute was in tenancy occupation of Shri Virendra Singh Katiyar who was his uncle and petitioner was also living with him in the premises in dispute. It has further been alleged that Shri Virendra Singh Katiyar in October 1975 completely shifted his resi dence to his ancestral village and since then petitioner alone was residing in the accommodation in dispute and he alone paid the rent to the original land ladies i. e. , respondent No. 4 Smt. Suraj Bala and Smt. Shanti Devi since de ceased who was mother of respondent No. 5 Smt. Sheo Dulari (respondent No. 3 Smt. Savitri Sonkar claims to be transferee from respondent Nos. 4 and 5 ). Smt. Suraj Bala and Smt. Shanti Devi were real sisters. Smt. Shanti Devi died in September 1978. 4. Proceedings giving rise to the instant writ petition were initiated on the application of one Shri Ramesh Chandra Nigam for declaration of vacancy and allotment. Petitioner contended that he was living as tenant since before July 1976 hence his tenancy stood regularised by virtue of section 14 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 as amended in 1976. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur declared the vacancy through order dated 14. 2. 1979 copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Thereafter, it was allotted to Shri Ramesh Chandra Nigam on 26. 6. 1979. Thereafter, petitioner filed review application under section 16 (5) of the Act. Respondent No. 3 the transferee also filed application for review under section 16 (5) of the Act and for release under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. Shri Ramesh Chandra Nigam did not participate in the review proceedings. Respondent No. 4-Smt. Suraj Bala filed affidavit supporting petitioners case. R. C. & E. O. recalled the allotment order and directed for fresh inspection through order dated 29. 8. 1983. Against the order dated 29. 8. 1983 petitioner filed revision which was dismissed on 5. Shri Ramesh Chandra Nigam did not participate in the review proceedings. Respondent No. 4-Smt. Suraj Bala filed affidavit supporting petitioners case. R. C. & E. O. recalled the allotment order and directed for fresh inspection through order dated 29. 8. 1983. Against the order dated 29. 8. 1983 petitioner filed revision which was dismissed on 5. 11. 1985 by Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (Rent Revision No. 240 of 1983 ). 5. Respondent No. 3 purchased the property in dispute from respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 27/29th May, 1981. However, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed O. S. No. 331 of 1982 for cancellation of the sale deed. 6. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed on 19. 11. 2008 that in O. S. No. 331 of 1982 an interim order was passed on 1. 11. 1992 restraining respondent No. 3 from evicting the tenants except in accordance with law and the suit is still pending. It has also been stated that two more suits being O. S. No. 170 of 1983 filed by Smt. Sheo Dulari-respondent No. 5 against respondent No. 3 and another suit being O. S. No. 1296 of 1997 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi and others v. Smt. Savitri Sonkar are also pending in respect of property in dis pute. 7. As suits for cancellation of sale deed through which respondent No. 3 purchased the property are pending and as there is injunction order in one of the said suits, hence impugned orders cannot be sustained. 8. The Revisional Court brushed aside the affidavit of Smt. Suraj Bala (which she had filed in favour of petitioner before R. C. & E. O.) on the ground that one of the landladies could not give consent. The view is erroneous in law. One of the co-owners is fully entitled to let out the building. The copy of the affidavit which was sworn on 23. 12. 1981 is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It was sworn and filed after alleged sale deed of 27. 5. 1981. Sale deed is under challenge before the Civil Court. If sale deed is set aside then by virtue of affidavit of one of the landladies, petitioners possession cannot be said to be unauthorised. However, if the sale deed is found to be valid by the Civil Court then the said affidavit will not be of any value. 9. 5. 1981. Sale deed is under challenge before the Civil Court. If sale deed is set aside then by virtue of affidavit of one of the landladies, petitioners possession cannot be said to be unauthorised. However, if the sale deed is found to be valid by the Civil Court then the said affidavit will not be of any value. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. However, it is directed that in case suit filed for cancellation of the sale deed fails then respondent No. 3 may initiate fresh proceedings. Petition Allowed. .