JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal,J. The petitioner by way of the instant writ petition has assailed the order dated 16.04.2001 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer (City Magistrate), Lucknow whereby the premises in dispute was released in favour of the opposite party no.3. The petitioner has also assailed the judgment and order dated 07.02.2002 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow whereby the revision filed against the aforesaid release order was dismissed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that that opposite party no.3, namely, Mohd. Ahmad filed an application under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No.13 of 1972) for release of the premises in dispute which was under occupation of Shri Dharam Dev Sharma as tenant. The learned Prescribed Authority obtained the report of the Rent Control Inspector, who submitted his report that Shri Dharam Dev Sharma, who was tenant in one of the portions of the premises in dispute, had shifted to Delhi and the disputed premises was locked. On submission of the report by the Rent Control Inspector, notices were issued to the concerned parties and on 01.01.2001, the premises in dispute was declared vacant. After the declaration of the vacancy, notice was again issued to the concerned parties and the petitioner on getting the notice filed a release application on 04.04.2001. However, it appears that the learned Prescribed Authority assuming that there was no contest, allowed the release application of the opposite party no.3 by the impugned order dated 16.04.2001 and released the premises under the occupation of Shri Dharam Dev Sharma in favour of the opposite party no.3. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of release, the petitioner filed revision under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Lucknow which was heard and disposed of by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, who dismissed the revision. 4. I have heard Shri N.N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Shri R.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no.3 and 4. 5. 4. I have heard Shri N.N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Shri R.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no.3 and 4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises in question is a huge building, which was originally owned by the father of the petitioner late Shri Abdul Haq Siddiqui and on his death, the property was inherited by the petitioner and his two brothers namely, Shri Abdul Salam and Shri Abdul Samad. As the entire building was a big structure, all the heirs of late Shri Abdul Haq Siddiqui separated their share mutually by way of family settlement and the opposite parties no.3 and 4 got 1/3rd share while the remaining portion fell into the share of the petitioner and the two sons of Shri Abdul Samad. They got the entire ground floor of the building whereas the petitioner was given the entire first and second floor of the building in his share. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 as well as the petitioner all were living in the village, but after the death of their father and mutual partition, they decided to live at Lucknow. Since the petitioner was also living in the village, he let out the premises to Shri Dharam Dev Sharma. After the vacation of the portion in dispute by Shri Dharam Dev Sharma, the petitioner took possession of that portion and locked it. However, the opposite party no.3 in order to take possession of the said portion, secretly moved a release application showing himself to be the sole landlord and got the vacancy declared without the knowledge of the petitioner. However, on getting information of the case, the petitioner appeared before the learned Prescribed Authority and moved a release application on 04.04.2001. After filing of the release application by the petitioner, only two dates were fixed in the case i.e. 10.04.2001 and 12.04.2001 and no proceeding took place on both the dates as the learned Presiding Officer was not available. The matter was fixed on 16.04.2001 and on the said date, the final order releasing the premises in favour of the opposite party no.3 was passed by the learned Prescribed Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The matter was fixed on 16.04.2001 and on the said date, the final order releasing the premises in favour of the opposite party no.3 was passed by the learned Prescribed Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the aforesaid release order, he preferred rent revision before the District Judge, Lucknow, which was also dismissed without appreciating the fact that the said release order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing. 6. The contesting opposite party no.3, who is represented by Shri R.P. Sharma has argued that the learned Prescribed Authority in the order d ated 16.04.2001 has clearly mentioned that the petitioner after filing of the release application did not turn up and also did not press his release application. In these circumstances, learned Prescribed Authority having no other alternate considered the release application of the opposite party no.3 and allowed the same as the vacancy had already been declared. With regard to the mutual partition, the submission on behalf of the opposite party no.3 is that the property is still joint and there has been no partition between the heirs of late Shri Abdul Haq Siddiqui. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, has drawn the attention of the Court towards certified copies of the orders dated 04.04.2001, 10.04.2001 and 12.04.2001, which have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. The order-sheet dated 04.04.2001, reflects that on this date, the application for release was filed by the petitioner upon which 10.04.2001 was fixed. On 10.04.2001, the case was adjourned to 12.04.2001 as the Presiding Officer was busy in administrative work. On 12.04.2001 again the case was adjourned to 16.04.2001 as the Presiding Officer was busy in administrative work. The impugned release order was passed on 16.04.2001 on the ground that the petitioner did not contest the release application. On 10.04.2001, the case was adjourned to 12.04.2001 as the Presiding Officer was busy in administrative work. On 12.04.2001 again the case was adjourned to 16.04.2001 as the Presiding Officer was busy in administrative work. The impugned release order was passed on 16.04.2001 on the ground that the petitioner did not contest the release application. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that on the release application filed by the petitioner, the learned Presiding Officer ought to have given opportunity to give evidence in support of the averments made in the release application, but in utter haste learned Prescribed Authority proceeded to decide the release application finally without ascertaining as to whether the premises are actually required and needed by the opposite party no.3 and the petitioner is also one of the claimants for release of the premises in question. The release application has been allowed merely on the ground that the petitioner did not do any Parvi or press his release application although as a matter of fact no opportunity was ever given to the petitioner to give evidence in support of his release application. 8. From the perusal of the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit exchanged between the parties, I also find that there is dispute with regard to the alleged mutual family partition between them. Learned Prescribed Authority also ought to have inquired as to whether the premises in question sought to be released, is the joint property or it was in exclusive share of one of the contesting parties. As per the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, the jurisdiction to release a premise arises only after it is found that the premises is bonafide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. No such finding has been recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority before passing the order on the release application and surprisingly the revisional authority also did not consider this important aspect of the matter. 9. Having perused the impugned orders and the pleadings of the parties, I am of the view that both the impugned orders in this writ petition are liable to be set aside and matter requires to be looked into again by the Prescribed Authority in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 10. 9. Having perused the impugned orders and the pleadings of the parties, I am of the view that both the impugned orders in this writ petition are liable to be set aside and matter requires to be looked into again by the Prescribed Authority in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 16.04.2001 and 07.02.2001 passed by the opposite parties no. 2 and 1 respectively annexed as Annexures No.1 & 3 of the writ petition are hereby set aside. The matter is sent back to the learned Prescribed Authority, who is directed to look into the controversy again in the light of observations made in this judgment and decide the controversy afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 12. No order as to costs.