JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners. 2. Cause shown by the applicants' Counsel is sufficient. 3. Accordingly, after condoning the delay in filing application for recall of the order, it is allowed and the order dated 16.7.2007 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number. 4. In brief, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners-landlords who are the owners of House No. 374 BC Bazar Razman Bazar P.S. Cantonment, Lucknow, had rented out one quarter/ house on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- to the predecessor of opposite parties 3 to 6. When the predecessor of opposite parties 3 to 6 had started making unauthroized constructions on 31.5.1997 and as such, a telegram was sent to the tenant Mool Chand by Ganesh Prasad, petitioner No.1 to stop raising unauthorized constructions as he is damaging the tenament by making material alterations, followed by a notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act demanding the entire arrears, as the predecessor of opposite parties 3 to 6 became defaulter from 1.1.1994 to 31.5.1997. Further, by the aforesaid notice, tenancy was also terminated. However, the said notice was replied and the allegation with regard to the raising of structures over the land in question on the southern side was specifically denied. As the outstanding rent has not been made good, S.C.C. Suit No. 87/98 was filed by the petitioner against tenant Mool Chand, the predecessor of opposite parties 3 to 6, for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages, to which objections were raised by filing written statement. In paragrah 16 of the written statement, it has been stated that the petitioners are not the absolute owners of the property, but in order to avoid complications, he has tendered the entire outstanding amount of rent on the first date of hearing, as required under Section 30 of the Act 13 of 1972. 5. During the pendency of the Suit, predecessor in interest of opposite parties 3 to 6 died and as such, the opposite parties 3 to 6 were impleaded as opposite parties and they were contesting. After the evidences were led on behalf of the parties, three issues were framed by the trial Court as under:- (1) Whether in the disputed property any unauthorized and illegal construction was carried out in order to reduce the value of the property in question? After the evidences were led on behalf of the parties, three issues were framed by the trial Court as under:- (1) Whether in the disputed property any unauthorized and illegal construction was carried out in order to reduce the value of the property in question? (2) Whether in the disputed structures, the commercial business is carried out without permission of the petitioner? (3) Whether the opposite parties were defaulters in paying rent? All the issues were decided against the petitioners against which revision was filed and the said revision was also dismissed, confirming the orders passed by the trial Court. 6. During the pendency of the revision, an amendment application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the Suit, with regard to the title of the land in question, which has been disputed by the opposite parties 3 to 6 by filing a written statement, in addition to the grounds already taken for ejectment from the house in question. The said application was rejected. In paragraph - 16 of the written statement, the predecessor of the opposite parties 3 to 6 has stated that the land in question belongs to Ministry of Defence, but no issue has been framed with regard to the title of the property and further as to whether the petitioners/plaintiffs are the owners of the structures standing over the land belonging to the Defence Estate Officer. 7. Though the name of Mr. Mohd. Khalid, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has been printed in the cause list, yet none responds for the respondents to press this petition. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that since no issue has been framed and no finding has been recorded either by the trial Court or by the Revisional Court, the matter has to be remanded to the Revisional Authority for deciding the matter afresh. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 5.10.2006 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Revisional Authority to decide the matter, afresh, after appreciating the evidence, in accordance with law, within a maximum period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.