Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Sri Dinesh Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri A.K. Gupta, Advocate, for petitioner states that he has no instructions in the matter. No other counsel has appeared on behalf of petitioner though the case has been called in revised. In the circumstances, I have perused the record. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.6.2006 (Annexure 10 to writ petition) passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate (III), Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 53 of 2004 (Vijai Vs. Ravindra Kumar) with respect to House No. 105/490-B Shri Nagar, Kanpur Nagar declaring vacancy in the house in dispute. 3. Having gone through the impugned order as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. 4. Dismissed. 5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed. _____________