The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the R. C. and E. O. to review earlier orders under Section 16(5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the authorization for possession through application under Section 18(3). The judgment also emphasizes the consequences of the cancellation of the allotment order and the obligation of the petitioner to pay rent/damages for use and occupation to the landlady.

( 1 ) ORIGINAL petitioner Lakhpat Singh (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) filed an application for allotment of property in dispute on 4. 12. 81. At that time property in dispute was in the shape of a kothri and Mahant Hari Das was landlord of the said property. Mahant Hari das filed objection stating therein that the kothri was in a dilapidated condition and it was in his possession and it was never let out before. R. C. and E. O. , Mathura, on 20. 7. 1982. declared the vacancy and thereafter allotted the building in dispute to the petitioner on 30. 7. 1983. Against the allotment order Mahant Hari Das filed revision before District Judge, however during pendency of the revision he sold the property in dispute to Yashoda Devi respondent No. 1 on 17. 2. 1984. Thereafter Mahant Hari Das did not pursue his revision which was dismissed in default. Thereafter Yashoda Devi filed civil suit in which status quo order remained in operation for several years. After vacation of the stay order in the suit petitioner filed an application for possession. R. C. and E. O. on 26. 5. 1988, directed delivery of possession by issuing forms D and in pursuance of the said order petitioner was delivered possession through police force on 8. 6. 1988. Against the aforesaid order Yashoda Devi filed Revision No. 109 of 1988 and also a review petition before R. C. and E. O. under Section 16 (5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The review was filed within a week from dispossession. Vth A. D. J. , Mathura on 5. 8. 1988 dismissed the revision and directed the R. C. and E. O. to decide all the points in the review petition. Revision was dismissed on the ground of pendency of review petition. Thereafter, R. C. and E. O. through order dated 11. 7. 1990, allowed the review petition, set aside the vacancy declaration order dated 20. 7. 1982 and allotment order dated 30. 7. 1983. Against the said judgment revision was filed by the petitioner being Civil Revision No. 128 of 1990. Vth A. D. J. , Mathura on 2. 4. 1991, dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

( 2 ) R. C. and E. O. in the impugned order has held that at the time of declaration of vacancy property in dispute was not vacant as it was in actual possession of the landlord even though he was residing in another tenanted house due to the reason that kothri in dispute was in extremely dilapidated condition and previous landlord did not have sufficient means to reconstruct the same. R. C. and E. O. has also recorded a finding that prior to declaration of vacancy through order dated 20. 7. 1982, kothri in dispute was never let out to any other tenant. In the writ petition nothing has been stated as to why these findings are wrong. In the writ petition the entire emphasis is on the point that R. C. and E. O. has no jurisdiction to review the earlier orders of vacancy declaration and allotment. Under Section 16 (5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 specific power of review has been conferred upon R. C. and E. O. Apart from it revisional court/vth a. D. J. , Mathura, while dismissing revision of respondent No. 1 Smt. Yashoda Devi (Revision no. 109 of 1988) specifically directed the R. C. and E. O. to decide the review petition and the points taken therein. In view of this R. C. and E. O. was fully empowered to decide the review petition on merits. On this count no fault can be found with the order passed by R. C. and E. O.

( 3 ) R. C. and E. O. has also mentioned that even though allotment order was in respect of only one kothri, however, possession was delivered to the petitioner on the entire building. In the possession memo it was mentioned that petitioner was delivered possession on two huts and open land. R. C. and E. O. has also held that as kothri, which was allotted, had completely fallen down hence allotment order could not be enforced. R. C. and E. O. was fully justified in recording the finding that possession would be delivered only and only on the property, which was