Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25424 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000025 of 2014 Petitioner :- Syed Abbas Haider Rizvi Respondent :- Additional District Judge Court No.1 Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Aslam Khan,Mohd. Uzair Hasan Siddiqu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Kumar Singh,Manish Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent even in the revised call. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2012, whereby the R.C. & E.O. exercise the power of review has set aside an earlier order dated 27.09.2012 as well as the order dated 17.02.2014, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.11.2012 was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claiming to be the land lord moved an application for release of the premises, which was locked by the tenant and was not in occupation. On the said application, the proceedings for determination of vacancy were initiated and ultimately, an order of vacancy was passed on 27.09.2012 and thereafter, the property was released in favour of the petitioner. It is claimed that in pursuance of the order of release a vacancy, the petitioner was granted the possession also. However, an application was filed seeking review of the order 27.09.2012, which was allowed on 22.11.2012 mainly on the ground that no notice was served upon the tenant. The said application came to be allowed in exercise of power under Section 16(5) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was dismissed. Both the orders are under challenge. 4. Considering the fact that the order of review was filed in exercise of power under Section 16(5) of the Act solely on the ground that the notice was not served, without even taking into account the fact that the tenant had locked the premises, was an improper exercise of power, the revisional court has heard in not considering this fact while dismissing the revision. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no rent is being paid by the tenant. 6. Considering the mandate of Section 16(5) of the Act coupled with the fact that no equity exists in favour of the tenant, who has not made any rent, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The order dated 22.11.2012 as well as the order dated 17.02.2014 are quashed. The earlier order dated 27.09.2012 is affirmed. 8. The writ petition is allowed. 9. The execution proceedings shall take place in accordance with law. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench