ORDER Murlidhar, J. - This is a landladys petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings for release of a bungalow No. 44, Kalagarh Road, Dehradun. 2. The brief relevant facts are that a former tenant Roy vacated the premises on 31-5-1977 and the landlady, aged about 70 years, applied for release. There were also a number of other applicants for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer per order dated 5-10-1977 rejected the release application and allotted the house to respondent No. 3, who is an officer in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The District judge in revision has confirmed that order. These are the orders impugned by this petition. 3. The first point urged was that the District Judge had not passed any orders on the application of the petitioner supplying ten documents by way of evidence before him in revision. It was contended that a revisional court has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence and the District Judge should have decided the question whether this additional material should be admitted or not and if it was admitted should have given his decision I after considering that material. It appears from para 7 of the petition that the application was not really for filing additional evidence but for filing papers which had already been filed before the Prescribed Authority but were asserted to be missing from the record. Details of these documents have been given in para 18 of the present petition and these bear mainly on (1) sanction in 1975 of the City Board, Dehradun for building plan of first storey on house No. 44, Kalagarh Road, (2) illness of M. C. Mohan, husband of the petitioner in February and March, 1977, and (3) shifting of the petitioner to Dehradun and taking up residence in the disputed premises after the filing of the present application for release. The copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-10-1977 shows that it had taken into consideration all these points as well as the alleged heart trouble of the elder son, S. Mohan, due to which the family was said to have decided to settle at Dehradun. It also considered the advertisement dated 16-5-1977 in Hindustan Times for the sale of the house, the explanation for which was that it was put in by the petitioners husband without her authority. It also considered the advertisement dated 16-5-1977 in Hindustan Times for the sale of the house, the explanation for which was that it was put in by the petitioners husband without her authority. The revisional courts order records the finding that the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not shown to suffer from any infirmity that could be taken note of under Section 18 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). It is clear that in these circumstances it was not a case where the revisional court was called upon to decide whether additional evidence could or should be admitted. It duly considered the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who arrived at that finding after taking note of the papers said to have been missing at the revision stage and filed before the revisional court. There is no allegation that any particular feature in the missing papers was not noticed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and materially affects the finding. Therefore the finding or the order cannot be attacked on this ground. 4. It was urged that the inspection under Rule 8 by the Senior Inspector (Rent Control) made on 9-5-1977 was illegal inasmuch as the notice about this inspection though issued on 27-4-1977 reached the petitioner at her Lucknow address on 11-5-1977. Under Rule 8 the inspection is to be made in the presence of the landlord and the tenant or other occupants so far as possible. This requirement must be held to be substantially complied with when a notice was dispatched to the landlord well in advance of the date of inspection. An accidental mistake in the address even if taken to have occurred, as alleged in the rejoinder-affidavit, which delayed the service of notice will not make any difference especially when the petitioner later on participated in the proceedings and had an opportunity of pointing out and rebutting any such mistake. 5. It was also contended that under former Rule 13 (4) the matter of release was a matter between the landlord and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the applicant for allotment had no say in it and the proceedings were vitiated because respondent No. 3 was permitted to contest the release application and lead evidence against the petitioner's evidence. It was also contended that under former Rule 13 (4) the matter of release was a matter between the landlord and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the applicant for allotment had no say in it and the proceedings were vitiated because respondent No. 3 was permitted to contest the release application and lead evidence against the petitioner's evidence. Former Rule 13 (4) was deleted with effect; from 25th May 1977 and inasmuch as it was a procedural provision the deletion operated retrospectively so as to affect even pending proceedings. In the absence of any express prohibition under old Rule 13 (4), the participation of Respondent. 3 would not vitiate the proceedings even if we take it that the applicants for allotment do not have the rights of a full-fledged contesting party. I have held in a few cases that the Rent Control and Eviction Officers power to decide upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord for purposes of release included the ancillary power to admit material relevant to this issue from any quarter including the applicants for allotment. Of course if there is an objection by the landlord to the participation of such applicants the Rent Control and Eviction Officer would decide the extent to which he would permit them to assist him in this matter. In the present case no such objection appears to have been taken before the Rent Control Officer and, therefore, the participation of the applicant for allotment must be held to be in order under an implied permission by the Rent Control Officer based on the acquiescence of the petitioner. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot be allowed to be attacked on this ground. 6. It was pointed out that the respondent allottee is already occupying some tenanted premises on Lytton Road at Rs. 425/- per month and, therefore, he was not a proper person for allotment. Even if there be substance in the contention, the petitioner has no standing to raise this objection because she is only concerned with the matter of release and has not pointed out anything that may make out a legitimate grievance against the choice of this particular applicant as an allottee. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Since the petitioner is in occupation of the premises she is allowed, three months time to vacate it and the order of allotment shall be enforceable after this period. No order as to costs.