JUDGMENT : B.D. Agarwala, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Petitioner who is disabled Army Officer, not in service. By means of this petition he has challenged the judgment and order dated 7th October 1977 of the learned District Judge, Allahabad, allowing the revision against the order dated January 27, 1977 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, allotting house no, 25A Lowther Road Allahabad, to one Dr. Krishna Kant Mishra who has been arrayed as Respondent No. 4 to the petition. 2. The Petitioner made an application far allotment of the house in question in the prescribed form before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, on August 7, 1976, He, however, occupied the house on November 1, 1976 with the consent of the landlord, upon a report having been submitted by the Rent Control Inspector regarding the vacancy of the house in question, a notice was issued to the landlord to enable him to have his say to the matter of allotment. Another application, in Continuation of the earlier application dated 7th August, 1976 was made by the Petitioner, for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on January 27, 1977 considered all the applications which had been received for allotment of the house in question. He by an offer of the same date allotted the house to Dr. Krishna Kant Mithra, Respondent No. 4. The applications made by other persons including that made by the Petitioner were rejected. 3. Aggrieved, a revision was filed by the Petitioner before the learned District Judge, Allahabad, The learned District Judge by his order and judgment dated October 7, 1977 allowed this revision holding that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not applied the rule of first come first served and be has completely lost sight of the first application for allotment made by the Petitioner on August 7, 1976. On this view the learned District Judge set aside the allotment order made in favour of the respondent no, 4 and allowed the revision. It is this revisional order of the learned District Judge which has been impugned m the. present petition. On this view the learned District Judge set aside the allotment order made in favour of the respondent no, 4 and allowed the revision. It is this revisional order of the learned District Judge which has been impugned m the. present petition. This older has been challenged only to a limited extent so far as the issuance of direction to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider as to which of the applicants for allotment whose cases he had considered in his order dated January 27, 1977, had got their applications renewed by January 15, 1977 as provided in Rule 10(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972 made in due exercise of powers u/s 41 Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 4. I have heard Sri R.A. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the length. It has been contended by Sri Sharma that this direction made by the learned District Judge in his order was based on a wrong assumption, as if an application, made for allotment required renewal. According to them, an application for allotment once filed, and if not disposed of, continues to remain pending. He has, in support of this contention relied upon decision of a learned Single Judge of this, court in Gopi Krishna v. Vth Additional District Judge 1977 ARC 197. In this case the learned Single Judge took the view that application for allotment, continues to remain a duly filed and pending application for allotment and does not cease to be so merely because no renewal had been made. So far as this general proposition laid down by the learned Single Judge is concerned, there possibly can be no dispute. 5. The question in the present case is one of interpretation of Rule 10 of the Rules. Rule 10 of the Rules deals with the procedure relating to allotment. So far as this general proposition laid down by the learned Single Judge is concerned, there possibly can be no dispute. 5. The question in the present case is one of interpretation of Rule 10 of the Rules. Rule 10 of the Rules deals with the procedure relating to allotment. The procedure has been laid down in detail in various sub-rules of this rule Sub-rule (4) of this rule reads thus: The Register shall be prepared afresh for every calendar year and applicants who are unable to secure allotment by the end of a year and whose applications were not rejected as not maintainable may apply by the 15th January of the succeeding year for renewal of registration of their applications and shall thereupon retain their original relative priority in comparison to other applicants and the names of persons whose applications are so renewed shall stand above the names of new applicants in that year. 6. An analysis of this rule already brings out its salutary nature. This rule provides that if applications for allotment were not rejected as not maintainable and the applicants are unable to secure allotment by the end of the year, they may apply by the 15th of January of the succeeding year for renewal of registration of their applications and if they so do, then they would be entitled to retain their original relative priority in comparison to other applicants. The rule further provides that the names of persons whose applications ate so renew ed shall stand above the names of sew applicants in that year. 7. On the language of the above rule, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel that though the applicant fail to get his application renewed. It would not result in making his application already filed as non-est. Failure to get the application renewed would render application already filed, as of no consequence. It is only those applications in respect of which renewal is applied for by the 15th January of the succeeding year, which can be treated as applications pending in that year and it is those applications alone along with the applications made in that year which will be entered in the register prepared for that year. The relative priority is retained in comparison to new applications. 8. The relative priority is retained in comparison to new applications. 8. This sub-rule was neither referred to nor considered by the learned single Judge who decided the case of Gopi Krishna and Ors. (supra). 9. In this view of the matter, the learned District Judge was right in directing under the impugned order that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer would also consider as to which of the applicants for allotment had applied for renewal by the 15th January, 1977 as provided for in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules and to apply the sub-rule accordingly. 10. In the result, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.