Sudhir Agarwal, J.:— The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.02.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar allowing Rent Revision No. 05 of 2001 filed by respondent no. 4 and setting aside Rent Control and Eviction Officer's (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") order dated 30.08.2000 and remanding the matter to RCEO for deciding afresh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no occasion for setting aside RCEO's order for the reason that petitioner was the landlord and this issue having been decided by RCEO, in absence of any challenge by respondent no. 3, would not have been allowed to be re-agitated before RCEO by remanding the case at the instance of respondent no. 4 who had no legal or otherwise right to challenge petitioner's claim for releasing of accommodation in question, in his favour. He contended that on the basis of rent receipts etc., the petitioner was found to be the landlord as defined under Section 3(j) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and, therefore, there was no occasion for Revisiona Court to remand the matter. 3. In my view the Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order of RCEO but I have certain further/other reasons for taking the same view. 4. It appears that there was a dispute of ownership between petitioner and respondent no. 3 in respect of accommodation in question before RCEO who held in his order dated 30. 08. 2000 that the owner of property in question is petitioner and not respondent no. 3. When asked specifically from Sri N. B. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether RCEO can consider the question of ownership in the proceedings under Section 16(1) of Act, 1972, he fairly stated that question of title cannot be decided by him but submitted that since this aspect of the matter has not been agitated further, there was no reason to look into this fact. Once it is evident from record that RCEO has taken up an issue in passing his order which was wholly beyond his jurisdiction, such an order cannot be allowed to stay. It is in these circumstances, the Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order dated 30. 08. 2000 passed by RCEO. 5. Once it is evident from record that RCEO has taken up an issue in passing his order which was wholly beyond his jurisdiction, such an order cannot be allowed to stay. It is in these circumstances, the Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order dated 30. 08. 2000 passed by RCEO. 5. So far as question of vacancy etc. is concerned, since RCEO's order dated 30. 08. 2000 itself has been set aside, it has to be considered afresh and decided in accordance with law. Therefore, the remand of matter to RCEO to look into this aspect of matter, afresh, cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal in any manner. The Revisional Court's order, in so far as it runs contrary to observations made above, shall stand modified accordingly. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of. _____________