JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The petitioner is the landlord of the accommodation in question hereinafter referred to as building. It was occupied by one Rafiqullah. An application was made for allotment of the said building by respondent No. 3 Manzurul Islam on the ground that Rafiqullah had ceased to occupy the building within the meaning of section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. When proceedings for an inquiry into the question, as to whether Rafiqullah had ceased to occupy the building, were going on, an application was made by the petitioner on April, 23, 1973, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure R-l to the rejoinder affidavit. In this application, it was stated by the petitioner that he has decided to have this house for his personal use and occupation." By this application, he wanted that the vacancy be declared first so that proper release application may be moved in respect of the building in question. From this application, it is apparent that the petitioner was aware of the inquiry which was being made to determine the question as to whether Rafiq ullah had ceased to occupy the building within the meaning of section 12 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated June 26, 1973 declared the building in question to be vacant. By a subsequent order, dated July 13, 1973 be allotted the building in favour of the respondent No. 3. It was only thereafter that on July 19, 1973, an application was made by the petitioner for release of the said building. That application was dismissed by the Rent Control an Eviction Officer. An appeal was filed by the petitioner which too was dismissed. Aggrieved, he has instituted the present writ petition. 2. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the order of allotment dated July 13, 1973 was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as it had been passed without considering the application dated April 23, 1973 made by the petitioner which according to the petitioner's counsel could be treated as an application for release. I am unable to agree with this submission. At seen above, a copy of the application has been filed along with the rejoinder affidavit and I have already given above the relevant contents of the said application. I am unable to agree with this submission. At seen above, a copy of the application has been filed along with the rejoinder affidavit and I have already given above the relevant contents of the said application. By no stretch of imagination, that application can be treated as an application containing the prayer for release of the building in favour of the petitioner. 3. The Additional District Judge, while dismissing the appeal has held that the respondent No. 3 had also occupied the building in pursuance of the order of allotment dated July 13, 1973 and that since no application for review of the order of allotment dated July 13, 1973 was filed by the petitioner as contemplated by sub-section 5 of section 16 of the Act, it was not possible to release the building in favour of the petitioner. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties. I am of opinion that the Additional District Judge was right in taking the aforesaid view. In respect of the building, there could not be two simultaneous orders in existence one allotting the same to respondent No. 3 and the other releasing it in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of allotment dated July 13, 1973, he should have made an application for review of that order under sub-section 5 of section 16 of the Act. It is only after the allotment order was reviewed and set aside that the building could be released in favour of the petitioner. Since admittedly no such application for review was made by the petitioner, the Additional District Judge cannot be said to have committed any manifest error of law in taking the view which he did. 5. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.