https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156795 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. en-us Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156795 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156795