JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Ravindra Dubey who is son of Ikcha Shankar Dubey challenging the orders dated 30.9.1993, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur (Annexure-3A to the writ petition) and order dated 29.12.1993, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur (Annexure-3B to the writ petition) and the order dated 18.3.1996 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the revisional authority.
2. In this writ petition the petitioner, Ravindra Dubey and respondent No. 6 are brothers and sons of respondent No. 7, Smt. Vidya Devi. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the landlords of the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner has come up with the case that his father, Ikcha Shankar Dubey was the tenant of the accommodation in question way back in the year, 1957 and the order 30.9.1993, Annexure-3A has been passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared vacancy in the accommodation in question on the ground that the accommodation in question namely House No. 107/65-66, Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is in possession of petitioner, Ravindra Dubey, his brother Sunil Dubey and their mother, Smt. Vidya Devi Dubey who claimed that they have inherited the tenancy of Ikcha Shankar Dubey. It is also stated that Ikcha Shankar Dubey has died in the year, 1982 and since the petitioner, his brother and their mother have already purchased House No. 107/280, Braham Nagar, Kanpur in the name of Smt. Vidya Devi Dubey and that Vidya Devi Dubey has already shifted to new house purchased by her, thus, there is a deemed vacancy. The landlords have already sought for release of the accommodation under Section 16(1)(b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer also issued notice by registered post to the parties but the petitioner has not turned up in-spite of notice sent to him therefore, he declared the vacancy with regard to the accommodation in question and held that Rule 8(2) of the 1972 Rules are complied with and declared the accommodation in question to be vacant by the order dated 30.9.1993. By the same order the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed a notice to be issued under Rule 9(3) of 1972 Rules to Ravindra Dubey, Sunil Dubey and mother Vidya Devi Dubey. By another order dated 29.12.1993, relating to the release of the accommodation the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the need of the landlord is bona fide and therefore, directed for release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord by the order dated 29.12.1993. Ravindra Dubey and Sunil Dubey filed an application under Section 16(5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for review and recall of the order dated 30.9.1993 and the order dated 29.12.1993, with regard to the accommodation House No. 107/65-66, Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The landlords have contested the aforesaid application for review and recall of the orders dated 30.9.1993 and 29.12.2003. This application under Section 16 (5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, vide order dated 18.3.1996. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the application under Section 16 (5) for review and recall of the orders dated 30.9.1993 and 29.12.1993 the petitioner, Ravindra Dubey preferred a revision before the respondent No. 1 which was dismissed by the order dated 6.9.2002, impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the same points before the revisional authority as were argued before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in support of the application filed under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Both the authorities have arrived at the conclusion and recorded findings that even if it is presumed that the petitioners' father died in the year, 1982, the fact that Smt. Vidya Devi Dubey had purchased the House No. 107/280, Braham Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and has shifted there, as has been found in the order declaring vacancy is a legal order. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to assail the order declaring vacancy on the ground that the same was passed without affording opportunity. It is settled principle that the order declaring vacancy cannot be challenged by means of revision under Section 18 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case in Ganpat Roy and Ors. v. Additional District Magistrate and Ors., , therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only against the refusal to review the order releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is illegal on various grounds, is not open to him in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Talib Hasan and Anr. v. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital and Ors., 1986 (1) ARC 1, wherein this Court has held that the question of release, is the question between the landlord and the authority therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same either before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by means of an application for review and recall under Section 16(5) of the Act for review of the order of the release.
3. In this view of the matter, to me it appears that the petitioner has no focus to challenge the order of release and also the order of revisional authority who has dismissed the application under Section 16(5) of the Act but in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of Talib Hasan (supra) to which I am bound, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.