JUDGMENT K. B. Lal, J. 1. BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of allotment dated 30-6-1978 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur and the orders dated 2-12-1978 and 17-12-1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur. 2. A residential portion of house No. 79/108, Bansmandi Kanpur fell vacant Haneef Khan the present petitioner made an application on 18-6-1973 for allotment of that portion to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer received report of the Rent Control Inspector regarding vacancy of the said portion on 3-7-1973 and notified the vacancy on 4-7-1973. Thereafter other persons also made applications for allotment of that portion, and Mushtaq Ahmad respondent no. 3 was one of them. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer observed that the applicants at serial nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were not available for consideration. He added that applicant no. 1 (Haneef Khan) the present petitioner had other tenanted accommodation in his possession. Applicant no. 6 (Mushtaq Ahmad) the present respondent no. 3, did not have any house of his own and, therefore, he was the best applicant. Though Haneef Khan was the first applicant and Mushtaq Ahmad was a subsequent applicant, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the portion of the house to Mushtaq Ahmad. 3. BEING aggrieved by this order Haneef Khan filed Rent Control Revision no. 100 of 1978 in the court of the District Judge, Kanpur. That revision was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Kanpur. The learned Additional District Judge, relying on the decision Syed Mohammad Fahim v. The Third Additional District Judge, 1978 Alld. Rent Cases 412 held that the revision was not maintainable. He, therefore, dismissed the revision on this short ground. Haneef Khan moved a review of this order and placed reliance on the decision Indian Farmers Fertilisers Corporation Ltd. v. E. C. Grover, 1978 AWC 772 . But his review application was also dismissed by an order dated 17-12-1979. Now Haneef Khan has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. THE learned counsel for Haneef Khan has assailed the order of allotment dated 30-6-i 978 on merits. He has urged that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer misread the allotment application of the petitioner, and therefore, passed a wrong order of allotment. Now Haneef Khan has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. THE learned counsel for Haneef Khan has assailed the order of allotment dated 30-6-i 978 on merits. He has urged that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer misread the allotment application of the petitioner, and therefore, passed a wrong order of allotment. Since the petitioner was the first applicant and had no other accommodation for his residential purposes he was entitled to allotment of the accommodation on the principle of first come first served. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2-12-1978 dismissing the revision as not maintainable, on the ground that it was based on a misreading of the decision Syed Mohammad Fahim v. The Third Additional District Judge (Supra). In this connection he has pointed out that this writ petition was admitted by the same Hon'ble Judge who had rendered the judgment in Syed Mohammad Fahim's case, and this was done in full knowledge of that case. 5. THIS writ petition has been opposed on behalf of Mushtaq Ahmad respondent no. 3 in whose favour the allotment order has been passed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 3 at some length and have carefully gone through the decision Syed Mohammad Fahim v. The Third Additional District Judge (supra). Syed Mohammad Fahim had made an application for allotment of an accommodation, but his application was rejected and the accommodation was allotted to some other person. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that Mohammad Fahim did not require the accommodation for occupation by himself. He also observed that the recommendation obtained by him from his father was of no avail because the provisions of section 17 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, (briefly the Act) were not applicable as the accommodation was non-residential. This view was upheld by the Additional District Judge in revision. Mohammad Fahim did not feel satisfied and filed a writ petition. The learned counsel for Mohammad Fahim assailed the order of allotment in favour of the other party on a number of technical grounds. He did not take up the stand that Mohd. Fahim application for allotment was wrongly rejected and the order of allotment should have been passed in his favour. The learned counsel for Mohammad Fahim assailed the order of allotment in favour of the other party on a number of technical grounds. He did not take up the stand that Mohd. Fahim application for allotment was wrongly rejected and the order of allotment should have been passed in his favour. He sought to challenge the allotment order in favour of the other party on the grounds which did not relate to Mohammad Fahim. In that connection the learned Single Judge observed : "All these questions need not be gone into in these proceedings. The petitioner was an applicant for allotment. If his application for allotment was rejected he cannot have any legal interest to challenge the allotment order made in favour of respondent no. 3". 7. THE last sentence occurring in this observation was misread by the learned Additional District Judge in the instant case. He took it to mean that an applicant whose application for allotment had been rejected, could have no legal interest to challenge the allotment order made in favour of another party. THEre can be no doubt that this was not the intention and purport of the last sentence of the above quoted observation. This sentence should be read in the light of the special facts and circumstances of that case. What was meant to be conveyed by the last sentence of the above quoted observation was that an applicant for allotment whose application for allotment had been rejected on good grounds could have no legal interest to challenge the allotment order in favour of another party, on other grounds. Syed Mohammad Fahim's case did not lay down that an unsuccessful applicant for allotment had no locus standi to file a revision against the allotment order under section 18 of the Act. Hence the order dated 2-12-1978 dismissing the revision as not maintainable was erroneous and based on a misreading of the aforesaid decision of this Court. This order deserves to be set aside. 8. IN my view the Additional District Judge should be directed to hear the revision afresh and decide it on merit according to law. I, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allotment order. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 2-12-1978 and 17-12-1979 passed by the Additional District Judge in Rent Revision no. 100 of 1978 and in the miscellaneous review application no. I, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allotment order. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 2-12-1978 and 17-12-1979 passed by the Additional District Judge in Rent Revision no. 100 of 1978 and in the miscellaneous review application no. 14 of 1978 are hereby quashed. It is directed that Rent Revision no. 100 of 1978 shall be reheard on merits according to law after giving the parties an opportunity to make their submissions. Costs of these proceedings shall be easy. Petition allowed.