CR 26 of 2008. 3.3.2008 Present: Mr. Mahesh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition has been filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the order of the learned Rent Controller, permitting the landlord to withdraw the petition for eviction instituted against the petitioner- tenant. Learned Rent Controller has noticed the averments made in the application averring that the petitioner is not one of the tenants of the demised premises and in these circumstances, the petition for eviction was not maintainable. Permission to withdraw the petition was granted and liberty reserved to the landlord to move a fresh petition for eviction in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – tenant has submitted that the order is not in accordance with law and that the learned Rent Controller had erred in granting such permission. According to him, the petition -2- should have been tried on merits. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The order passed by the Rent Controller cannot be faulted with either on the grounds of law as urged or on facts determined. If the petitioner – tenant is not the tenant of the demised premises, he can have no justifiable grievance against the landlord. Surely, the result of the petition at the end of the trial would have been its dismissal on the grounds that the petitioner tenant was indeed not the tenant of the demised premises and such a petition not maintainable. There is no error of jurisdiction which has been committed by the learned Rent Controller. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. March 3, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.