JUDGMENT Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 4.12.1980.
2. The case was taken up in the revised list. Sri S. K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners was present but no body has appeared on behalf of the respondents. On 2.4.1999 learned counsel for the parties made a request to list this case on 19.4.1999 so that they may seek instructions from their clients and they were heard for some time and the matter was put up today, i.e., 19.4.1999, as part heard. When the learned counsel for the respondent did not turn up. the matter was heard ex parte.
3. The brief facts as stated by the petitioners in the petition are that the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 16(1) (b) of Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. It was alleged in the application that the petitioners were tenant of the shop in dispute and were carrying on business in the name of Natho Mal Dharam Das. It was alleged that the two rooms were given to them on the first floor of the shop which were sub-let to one Gyan Chand and other two rooms were also sub-let to Baboo, Bansi. Rudha, Chajju and Gokul. Therefore, there was vacancy under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act and the landlord wanted to settle his own son in the business, therefore, a prayer was made to release the building under Section 16 (1) of the Act. It was further alleged in the application that the respondent wants to raise construction.
4. The application was contested on number of grounds by the petitioner. It was stated that no sub-letting was done as alleged in the application and Gyan Chand is an employee of the firm and Hari Chand is the munim of the firm and he used to sit for maintaining account of the firm. It was further stated that the petitioner has a vast business and the commission agents and customer used to come and used to reside therein and further the names which have been mentioned in the application are the men of the landlord and they are not sub-tenant of the petitioners. It is stated that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for a report from the Rent Control Inspector and he has given a report that there is no sub-letting. It is stated that the parties filed their affidavits in support of their respective contentions. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 14.7.1980 held that there is no vacancy and he ordered that the release application be consigned to record room. The landlord (respondent No. 3) filed revision against the order rejecting the application for release which was allowed by the revisional court on 4.12.1980.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that there was no vacancy was not revisable because it was only with regard to the declaration that there is no vacancy and further that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer where a finding of facts was recorded that there was no vacancy.
6. Since there was no body from the side of the respondent when the matter was being finally heard, though he has sought adjournment for seeking instructions on the earlier occasion, therefore, I must peruse the judgment of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and that too of the revisional court.
7. From a perusal of the judgment of the revisional court, it is apparent that the revisional court has held that a revision lies under Section 18 of the Act against an order made under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act rejecting the application for release. The order is a final order" within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act for that purpose. No revision lies certainly under Section 18 of the Act as against the mere determination of the question of vacancy. He has also observed that in the instant case, the position is different. The revisional court has pointed out irregularities committed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and remanded the case back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with certain direction to decide the case afresh. After perusal of the judgment of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as of the revisional court. I am of the view that there is no Illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error on the part of the revisional court in remanding the case back to decide the case afresh.
8. The writ petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. But there shall be no order as to cost.