JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents in both the writ petitions which raises common question of law, hence disposed of by this common order.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Nand Lal Chaturvedi challenged the order dated 22.1.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 107 of 2000 and order dated 27.6.1995 passed by respondent No. 2 in Suit No. 218 of 1991, Annexurcs-1 and 2 to the writ petition whereby the revisional Court has confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Officer and Eviction Officer on the application filed by the petitioner for declaring the vacancy in the premises in question, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rejected his application on the ground that petitioner has no right to file the application as he is neither the landlord, nor the owner of the premises in question.
3. Admittedly, the landlord and the owner of the property known as 'Mahamaya Temple'. The present petitioner has filed this writ petition as well as the applications before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer In his personal capacity. Since on the admitted facts and records, Nand Lal is neither owner, nor the landlord, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has committed no error in rejection his applications.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in Smt. Shashi Gouil v. District Judge, Meerut and Ors., 1989 (1) AWC 123 : 1989 (1) ARC 108 and Jaswant Singh v. Additional District Judge. Dehradnn and Ors., 1993 (3) AWC 1403 : 1993 (2) ARC 91, I have gone, through both the decisions but on the facts as well as on the law none of these decisions apply to the present case.
5. I do not see any illegality in the order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer and approved by the revisional Court, nor any such infirmity could be pointed out which may be covered by the jurisdiction under Section 18 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
6. This writ petition, therefore, being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. However, parties shall bear their own costs.