JUDGMENT

V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Syed Qasim Husain who is the landlord of the premises in suit.

2. The Petitioner was employed in the Education Department as an Assistant Master in the Government Higher Secondary School, Pratapgarh. He retired from Govt. service in July 1952, but he was re employed as Principal in the Higher Secondary School Shahganj, Pratapgarh. He worked there till July 1958. He wanted to establish his family after his retirement at Allahabad and he had purchased a house in the year 1940, No. 117, Chak, Allahabad. After his final retirement his house was not vacant. He put up with his father in law, Wasi Ahmad, who had been residing in the house fell into arrears of rent. Therefore a suit was brought by the Petitioner for ejectment. It was decreed on 20-2-1953. On 25-21958, i.e. soon after the decree for ejectment was passed, the Petitioner made an application for the release of the house in his favour as the same was to fall vacant. Three days later, on 23-2-1958 he made another application detailing his needs. The Inspector of the Rent Control and Eviction Office made an inspection and gave his report that the need of the Petitioner was genuine.

3. In the meanwhile Wasi Ahmad, who had lost the case, in the trial court, filed an appeal. A compromise was filed and it was agreed that Wasi Ahmad would vacate on 1-9-1958. The Petitioner gave yet another application for the release of his house in his favour, which was likely to fall vacant on y 1-8-1958. The Rent Control and Eviction officer passed an order that the file should be put up when the house fell vacant.

4. It appears that Wasi Ahmad surreptitiously got an application made to the Distt. Magistrate by one Sukhdeo Prasad Singh for the allotment of the house and Wasi Ahmad made an endorsement that he was vacating on 1-9-58. So the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to Sukhdeo Prasad Singh, ignoring the previous application of the Petitioner. On 13-10 58 the Petitioner filed a representation to the State Government u/s 7F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, for setting aside the allotment order and for the release of the house to the Petitioner. The State Govt. after calling for the record and after taking the written statement of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh, set aside the order dated 1 9-1958 in favour of Sukhdeo Prasad and released the house in favour of the Petitioner under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Rent Control and Eviction Act. This order was communicated to the Petitioner by a letter dated 14-2-59. Thereafter the Petitioner asked the opposite party, No. 2, Sukhdeo Prasad Singh to vacate the house and give possession to the Petitioner, but he paid no heed. On 20-4-59 the Petitioner made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer requesting him to comply with the order of the State Government and get the house vacated u/s 7A of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer offered several accommodations to Sukhdeo Prasad Singh but he refused to accept any and to vacate the premises. The Petitioner thereafter made another application on 24-6-59 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer requesting him to take action u/s 7A. But the Rent Control and Eviction Officer informed the Petitioner that no action u/s 7A of the Act could be taken again t opposite party No. 2 and the Petitioner was asked to seek his remedy by way of a suit. Aggrieved by that order the Petitioner has come to this Court.

5. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite party that since there was an alternate remedy by way of revision to the Commr. or the State Govt. the writ petition should not be entertained. Filing of revision has not been held by this Court as well as by other Courts to be an alternate and efficacious remedy. Revision is not a matter of right in which the person who files the revision can claim a relief. Under the circumstances I do not think that that