JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 29.06.2001 whereby Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") has declared vacancy in accommodation in question and order dated 9.9.2004 passed by Additional District Magistrate/RCEO rejecting petitioner's application for recall of eviction order and revisional order dated 15.10.2004 whereby petitioner's revision has been rejected by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Varanasi. 3. The petitioner sought to recall of the order dated 29.06.2001 declaring vacancy on the ground that he was occupant of accommodation in question and was not given any notice before declaring vacancy. In this regard, besides other, RCEO has found that inspection report submitted by Rent Control Inspector (hereinafter referred to as "RCI") clearly mention that in the accommodation in question, he found one Gorakh Nath Sharma in possession and petitioner was not found. Besides, RCEO has also considered other documents placing on record that in 1983, petitioner was resident in house No.D33/70 Mohalla Khalispura, Varanasi and in 1995 he was residing in house no.32/83 A. Findings of fact have been recorded by RCEO that petitioner was not at all occupant of accommodation in question and was not so found by Inspector, hence, question of giving any notice to the petitioner does not arise. So far as tenancy rights claimed by petitioner stating that he was tenant in accommodation in question since 1974, RCEO has clearly recorded a finding that no document or evidence was adduced by petitioner before RCEO showing that accommodation in question was under his tenancy. This fact is also admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such evidence has been placed on record. The petitioner was never allotted accommodation in question under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). The Revisional Court, having not found these findings perverse or contrary to material on record, therefore, rightly rejected the revision. 4. The petitioner was never allotted accommodation in question under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). The Revisional Court, having not found these findings perverse or contrary to material on record, therefore, rightly rejected the revision. 4. These are findings of fact and when petitioner was not found in occupation of accommodation in question by RCEO, order declaring vacancy cannot be interference only on the ground that no notice was given to the petitioner particularly when notice was admittedly given to the landlord as also occupant Gorakh Nath Sharma, who was found in occupation of building in dispute by RCI during inspection. 5. In these circumstances, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warrant interference in the impugned judgment. 6. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.