JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manish Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No. 2-Sri A.K. Maheshwari (in person) and Sri Parmendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur in Case No. 94/1979 wherein application of the respondent No. 2 (Ashok Kumar Maheshwari) under Section 18 (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed and the order dated 7.2.2018 passed by Additional District Judge (FTC-II), Lalitpur in Rent Control Revision No. 11 of 2011 affirming the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur dated 29.3.2011. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one Sukhpal Maheshwari was the owner of the shop No. 48/4, Subhaspura, Lalitpur (hereinafter referred as 'shop'). He had two sons namely Ashok Kumar Maheshwari-respondent No. 2 and Prakash Narayan Maheshwari-respondent No. 3. 4. It appears that one Shripat s/o Jujhar Singh was the tenant of the shop owned by Sukhpal Maheshwari . He submitted an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur that he would vacate the disputed shop on 30.6.1979. On the said application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer registered Case No. 94 of 1979 under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as 'Act,1972') and sought a report from Rent Control Inspector. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 28.4.1979 that the shop in question is vacant, and accordingly, the vacancy can be declared and the shop can be allotted. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur after obtaining report of Rent Control Inspector vide order dt. 30.4.1979 declared the vacancy for allotment of shop. 5. It seems that respondent No. 4 (Anil Kumar Alya) on 27.4.1979 filed an application in Misc. Case No. 94 of 1979 for allotment of the shop. On the said application, One Smt. Durga Devi w/o Kailash Narayan Maheshwari filed an application on 27.4.1979 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur giving consent for the allotment of shop to the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the shop was allotted to respondent No. 4 by the order dated 27.5.1979 of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur. Accordingly, the allotment order in prescribed form was issued in favour of respondent No. 4. 6. Thereafter, the shop was allotted to respondent No. 4 by the order dated 27.5.1979 of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur. Accordingly, the allotment order in prescribed form was issued in favour of respondent No. 4. 6. The respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 15 and 16 of the Act, 1972 in Misc. Case No. 94 of 1979 praying for cancellation of allotment order dated 21.5.1979 in favour of respondent No. 4. 7. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur by order dt. 30.6.2007 set aside the order of allotment dated 21.5.1979 in favour of respondent No. 4 . The Rent Control Officer held that Sukhpal Maheshwari was the owner of the shop. After his death, there was family partition in which shop fell in the share of respondent No. 2 (Ashok Kumar Maheshwari) and respondent No. 3 (Prakash Narayan Maheshwari). Thus, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the owner and landlord of the shop. 8. The order dated 30.6.2007 of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur was challenged by Smt. Durga Devi as well as respondent No. 4 in Rent Control Revision No. 32 of 2007 and 33 of 2007 respectively. The Additional District Judge, Lalitpur by judgment and order dated 25.5.2010 dismissed both the revisions. 9. The respondent No. 4 thereafter preferred Writ A No. 42276 of 2010 (Anil Kumar Alya Vs. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari and others) against the order of the Revisional Court dated 25.5.2010 and order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 30.6.2007 before this court. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court by the judgment and order dated 22.7.2010. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein:- “It is urged that the courts below did not consider the fact that the disputed property was bought by Smt. Durga Devi, who was the owner and landlord in an auction and the application for allotment was made only with respect to that property. Both the courts below have gone into this aspect in detail and after analyzing the evidence, including the admission of Durga Devi in a partition suit no. 137 of 1999 and the sale deed in the alleged auction, have returned a finding of fact that she was never the owner or landlord of the premises and the entire exercise in collusion with her husband was illegal and fraudulent. 137 of 1999 and the sale deed in the alleged auction, have returned a finding of fact that she was never the owner or landlord of the premises and the entire exercise in collusion with her husband was illegal and fraudulent. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error of law. Thus, the argument cannot be accepted. It is also urged that the allotment was made way back in 1979 and therefore the application for recall was not maintainable and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Gopal Vs. VI Additional District Judge [ 1988 (4) SCC 644 ) do no apply. No doubt there was delay, but the courts below have considered the facts and found that the landlord was unaware of the proceedings. Assuming there was delay, but fraud can be challenged at any stage as fraudulent actions are void and thus has no limitation. No other point has been urged. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. ” 10. Smt. Durga Devi also preferred Writ A No. 51341 of 2010 (Smt. Durga Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari and others) against the order dated 30.6.2007 and 25.5.2010. It appears that during the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, Smt. Durga Devi died. Therefore, her heirs were substituted. This Court by the judgment and order dated 22.7.2020 dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that as the two orders challenged in the said writ petition have been challenged by respondent No. 4 in Writ A No. 42276 of 2010 (Anil Kumar Alya Vs. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari and others) and as those two orders have been upheld by this Court, therefore, it is not proper for this Court to take a different view. 11. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 18 (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Case No. 94/1979 registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2005 praying for recovery of possession of the shop. 12. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur by the order dated 29.3.2011 after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the application of respondent no.2. Case No. 1 of 2005 praying for recovery of possession of the shop. 12. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur by the order dated 29.3.2011 after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the application of respondent no.2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur held that this court while dismissing the writ petitions against the order dated 30.6.2007 of Rent Control and Eviction Officer and order dt. 25.05.2010 dismissing the revision of the petitioner held that late Durga Devi was not the owner and landlord of the shop, therefore, the petitioners who are the heirs of Smt. Durga Devi are not entitled to get the possession of the shop. It further held that since the order dated 30.6.2007 cancelling the allotment of disputed shop in favour of respondent No. 4 was passed on the application of respondent No. 2, consequently, the respondent No. 2 is entitled for the possession of the shop. 13. The petitioner preferred Rent control Revision NO. 11 of 2011 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur dated 29.3.2011 which was dismissed by the revisional court on 07.02.2018. 14. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned Senior Counsel contended that according to Section 18 (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 after the cancellation of allotment order, the property in question is to be restored back to the person who was in the possession of the shop before allotment in favour of respondent no.4. He contends that since Smt. Durga Devi was in possession of the shop, therefore, the petitioners being legal heirs of Smt. Durga Devi are entitled to the possession of the shop after the cancellation of allotment order. Thus, the court below has misinterpreted Section-18(3) of Act,1972 in allowing the application of the Respondent No.2. 15. Per contra, respondent No. 2 (Ashok Kumar Maheshwari), who appeared in person, submits that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur while cancelling the allotment order in favour of respondent No. 4 has held that Smt. Durga Devi was not the owner and landlord of the disputed shop and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the joint owner of the shop which finding has been affirmed by this Court in two writ petitions referred above and the judgments of this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions have attained finality. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the joint owner of the shop which finding has been affirmed by this Court in two writ petitions referred above and the judgments of this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions have attained finality. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are joint owner of the shop, therefore, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur has correctly allowed the application and directed the delivery of possession of the disputed shop to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He further submits that the revision court after appreciating the law correctly dismissed the revision. Thus, he submits that finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as revisional court are based upon the proper appreciation of the fact and evidence on record, and as such are not liable to be interfered with by this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being finding of fact. 16. I have considered the rival submissions of parties and perused the record. 17. The facts as emerge out from the record are that the allotment of the disputed shop in favour of the respondent No. 4 was made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur on the consent of Smt. Durga Devi. The allotment of respondent No. 4 was challenged by the respondent No. 2 contending inter-alia that Smt. Durga Devi was not the owner of the disputed shop and could not give consent for allotment of shop and the allotment of the shop was obtained by playing fraud by the respondent No. 4 in collusion with Smt. Durga Devi. 18. The application of respondent No. 2 for cancellation of allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 was allowed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur by the order dated 30.6.2007 wherein finding on the basis of material and evidence on record had been recorded that Smt. Durga Devi was not the owner of the disputed shop and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the joint owner of the disputed shop. The aforesaid finding has been affirmed by the Revisional Court as well as by this Court in the Writ A No. 51341 of 2010 and Writ A No. 42276 of 2010. 2 and 3 are the joint owner of the disputed shop. The aforesaid finding has been affirmed by the Revisional Court as well as by this Court in the Writ A No. 51341 of 2010 and Writ A No. 42276 of 2010. The judgment of this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions have attained finality as they have not been assailed by the petitioners before the Apex Court. Accordingly, the finding of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur in the order dated 30.6.2007 that Smt. Durga Devi was not the owner of the disputed shop in question and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the joint owner of the disputed shop is binding upon the parties. Therefore, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner being legal heirs of late Smt. Durga Devi have no right to seek possession of the disputed shop rather the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to the possession being the owner and landlord of the property. The Revisional Court after appreciating the facts and evidence on record found that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur has not committed any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in issuing direction for delivery of possession of shop to the respondent no.2. Consequently, it found no merit in the revision and dismissed it by order dt. 07.02.2018. 19. This court in the case of Gauesh Chandra Gupta Vs. Prescribed Authority, 1990(2) AWC 1455 has held that after setting aside the order of allotment, the landlord should be put back in possession. Paragraph 5 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “The short question which requires consideration is as to the right of the landlady to be put back in possession. The legal position does not appear in doubt and is quite clear that after the setting aside of the order of notification of vacancy and that of the allotment in favour of respondent, it is necessary that the landlady be put back in possession. The person who got possession in pursuance of the order of allotment has to deliver back the possession to the landlord after the setting aside of the order of allotment-Section 18 (3) of the Act is clear in this regard. The person who got possession in pursuance of the order of allotment has to deliver back the possession to the landlord after the setting aside of the order of allotment-Section 18 (3) of the Act is clear in this regard. It provides that where the order under Section 16 of the Act is rescinded, the District Magistrate shall place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such allotment and may for that purpose use or caused to be used such force as may be necessary.” 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality in the orders impugned in the writ petition as findings recorded therein are finding of fact based upon the proper appreciation of material and evidence on record. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed with no orders as to cost.