JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 passed by 9th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 70 of 2011.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a release application was filed, which was registered as Case No. 1 of 2009 upon which vacancy order dated 10.03.2010 has been passed and thereafter, release order dated 08.06.2011 has also been passed. Against the said orders, respondent-defendant had filed Rent Revision No. 70 of 2011, which was allowed vide order dated 23.01.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is bad on two grounds. Firstly, without reversing the finding of Rent Control & Regulatory Officer (hereinafter referred to as “Regulatory Authority”), revision has been allowed. He next submitted that vacancy order and release order have been passed on the ground that petitioner is having her own house and residing in that also. He pointed out that Suit No. 893 of 1993 is pending between respondent-defendant and his sister in which he has filed