JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Kumar Jain, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are formal parties for the reason that respondent No. 3 is husband of petitioner and respondent No. 4 is allottee whose Writ Petition No. 42276 of 2010 against the very impugned order has been dismissed. The dispute is regarding shop No. 48/4 situate in Mohalla Shubhaspura, Lalitpur. 2. Petitioner Smt. Durga Devi now represented by her heirs and legal representatives claims to be the owner of the same. According to her, one Rampal had 1/4 share in the property of the family of Seth Hazarilal. His share was auctioned for the realisation of public dues whereupon it was purchased on 30.9.1963 by her husband Kailash Narain Maheshwari. After having purchased 1/4 share of Rampal it was transferred in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 4.5.1986. The 1/4 share of Rampal includes the shop in dispute. 3. The tenant of the shop vacated it and on application filed by respondent No. 4 it was declared to be vacant and was ultimately allotted to him vide order dated 21.5.1979. Pursuant to the said allotment respondent No. 4 came into possession and the allotment order recognised the petitioner as owner/landlord. 4. Some time in the year 2005 respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are brothers of the husband of the petitioner applied for recall/review of the allotment order claiming themselves to be the owner and landlord of the said shop. The application was allowed vide order dated 30.6.2007 and the allotment order was set aside. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 filed separate revisions against the above order but both the revisions were dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 25.5.2010. 5. Respondent No. 4 preferred Writ Petition No. 42276 of 2010 against the same and it was dismissed by this Court vide order 22.7.2010 and the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowing recall/review application and the order of the revisional Court were approved. 6. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the same very orders dated 30.6.2007 and 25.5.2010. 7. 6. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the same very orders dated 30.6.2007 and 25.5.2010. 7. Sri Jain has argued that the recall/review application has been allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on one of the grounds that the petitioner is not the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to decide about the title of the parties and therefore any finding or even an observation that petitioner is not its owner is null and void. 8. The orders impugned in this writ petition dated 30.6.2007 and 25.5.2010 have already been upheld by this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.7.2010 passed in the above referred writ petition. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to take a different view. Accordingly, the challenge to the above order in this writ petition cannot be accepted as the order of this Court dated 22.7.2010 has attained finality. 9. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no authority of law or jurisdiction to decide or comment about the title of the parties over the property, any observation or finding recorded by it or revisional Court would not come in the way of the petitioner or her heirs and legal representatives in getting it decided or adjudicated upon by the appropriate Court and the said observation/finding would not be binding upon them. 10. The parties who claim to be the owner and landlord and from whom the allottee took possession may apply for restoration of possession, if necessary, in accordance with Section 18(3) of the Act and it would be open for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider it after giving opportunity to all concern. The writ petition is dismissed with above observation. —————