Alternate statutory remedy bars writ intervention where revision is available, and direct High Court review was unjustified.

A writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained where an effective statutory revisional remedy is available. The respondent approached the High Court directly despite the remedy of revision under section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and the High Court re-examined the facts instead of insisting on exhaustion of that alternative remedy. Interference in writ jurisdiction was therefore unjustified, the High Court's order was set aside, and the respondent was left free to pursue the revisional remedy if so advised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction without first availing the statutory revisional remedy under section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Analysis: The respondent had an effective statutory remedy of revision, yet approached the High Court directly by way of writ petition. The High Court re-examined the facts despite the availability of that alternate remedy. In these circumstances, interference under writ jurisdiction was not justified.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained in the first instance. The High Court's order was set aside and the respondent was left at liberty to pursue the revisional remedy if so advised.

---