Rakesh Tiwari, J.;- Civil Misc. Application No. 284361 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 16.9.2010, by which the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution. Heard counsel for the parties on the question of restoration. The cause shown in sufficient. Accordingly, the order dated 16.9.2010 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. Heard counsel for the parties on merits and perused the record. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.8.2009 passed by Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 10 of 2009, the order dated 30.1.2009 releasing the premises in dispute in favour of the landlord respondent as well as the order dated 19.9.2008 declaring the vacancy. Landlord of house no. 119/393 (old), new no. 119769, Darshanpurwa, moved an application under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the accommodation in dispute. Objection to the aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner stating that he was residing in the premises in question alngwith his brother, father and mother since 1960; that he was minor at that time; that his brother Virendra Kumar, who was the tenant, has taken another accommodation and under the circumstances he is entitled for re allotment and that tenancy of the petitioner stood regularised. Stand taken by the landlord before Rent Control and Eviction Officer was that original tenant Virendra Kumar Sharma has constructed his own house and the petitioner was never tenant of the accommodation in question. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 19.9.2008 declared vacancy on the ground that petitioner has not shown any allotment order in his favour and there is no evidence to show that he was tenant of the accommodation in question. Subsequently, the premises in dispute was released in favour of the landlord vide order dated 30.1.2009. Against the aforesaid orders, Rent revision no. 10 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner which has also been dismissed by Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by impugned order dated 1.8.2009. Subsequently, the premises in dispute was released in favour of the landlord vide order dated 30.1.2009. Against the aforesaid orders, Rent revision no. 10 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner which has also been dismissed by Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by impugned order dated 1.8.2009. The orders impugned are assailed by the counsel for petitioner on the ground that at the time of allotment in the year 1960 in favour of petitioner's brother -Virendra Kumar Sharma, he was minor but was residing in the premises in question with his brother, father and mother; that in 1969 Virendra Kumar Sharma shifted outside Kanpur in connection with his employment and the petitioner continued to reside therein; that Virendra Kumar Sharma started residing separately since 1972 due to paucity of accommodation and thus the petitioner was residing in the accommodation in dispute prior to 15.7.1972 i.e. the date of commencement of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 and as such he is entitled for benefit of section 14 of the Act. Sri C.M. Rai appearing for the landlord respondent submits that Virendra Kumar Sharma has got constructed his own house in the year 2004 numbered as 787,Laxmi Vihar, Lakhanpur, Kanpur and is residing therein, hence the Rent Control and Eviction officer has rightly declared the vacancy. This fact is not disputed that accommodation in question was in the tenancy of petitioner's brother Virendra Kumar Sharma, who used to pay the rent and that he vacated and shifted to his own built house in Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar as stated above. As brother of tenant does not come within the ambit of family defined under section 3(g) of the Act, the petitioner has no right in the matter and the revisional court has rightly come to the conclusion that revision by a prospective allottee is not maintainable in view of settled legal propositions. Even if the petitioner was living with his brother as minor, the rent was being paid by his brother Virendra Kumar Sharma who acquired a vacant house constructed by him in the same municipal limits. The rent receipts go to show that rent is being paid by Virendra Kumar Sharma and none else. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, he was the tenant who has acquired his own house. The rent receipts go to show that rent is being paid by Virendra Kumar Sharma and none else. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, he was the tenant who has acquired his own house. Explanation (i) to third proviso to section 21 of the Act, also provides thus : " Where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependent on him, has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub section shall be entertained. " For the reasons stated above, the petitioner cannot remain in possession of the house in dispute either in his own right or otherwise. There is no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order in exercise of its extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.