JUDGMENT : K.N. GOYAL, J. 1. A residential building was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in 1977, to have fallen vacant. The Petitioner was one of the persons who applied for allotment of the same. In respect of rival claims for allotment, a writ petition was earlier filed in this Court, being petition No. 1925 of 1979. By an order dated 4-4-1980, the matter was remanded to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer who was required by this Court to pass fresh order in accordance with law. During the pendency of the allotment proceedings the original owner of the building transferred the house by sale in favour of opposite parties 3 to 5 who thereafter made an application for release in their favour on 3-11-1982. The Petitioner opposed the consideration of this release application, but his objection has been rejected by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and on revision by the Additional District Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The rulings relied on by the learned Additional District Judge in his appellate order do support his order. The following propositions have been laid down in the cases relied on: 1. That a transferee landlord acquires all rights of a previous landlord vide Chandrika Pd. v. D.J. 1981 ARC 346, and a release application filed by him is therefore legally maintainable although his predecessor bad not made any such application. 2. That even if an application for release has once been dismissed a subsequent application for release is maintainable on the basis of new facts and grounds so long as the matter of allotment or release has not become final, vide Sheo Charan Lal Gulati v. Addl. District Judge 1983 UP RCC 244 (para 26). 3. That once an allotment case has been remanded for reconsideration to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer with certain directions it is open to a transferee landlord to make an application for release and the Rent Control & Eviction Officer is under duty to dispose of the release application first before considering the applications for allotment, vide Smt. Manju Duggal v. II Addl. District Judge 1984 (1) ARC 626. 3. In the instant case, the previous landlord had not made any release application at all. District Judge 1984 (1) ARC 626. 3. In the instant case, the previous landlord had not made any release application at all. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri P.N. Mathur baa however, contended that the requirement of Rule 13(4), namely, that no application for allotment shall be considered unless an application for release has been rejected, itself implies that the stage form making an application for release is passed as soon as, for want of a release application, applications for allotment are taken up for consideration. He, accordingly, prays for reconsideration of the earlier decisions referred to above and for reference of the question to a larger Bench. 4. It is true that if the previous landlord bad made an application for release then no application for allotment could be taken up for consideration until after rejection of the release application. He, however, did not make any application for release and it was because of this that the applications for allotment came to be considered. This only implies that the previous owner did not need the building for himself and that may be a reason why he sold it away. If the new owner does need the building for himself, there is nothing in law to prevent him from asserting his need. The applicant for allotment cannot contend that they have acquired any vested right to have their applications considered without any application for the release being considered. 5. I do not see any principle on the basis of which a mere applicant for allotment can have a superior claim as against an owner, even if such owner is a transferee. The transferee has spent money on purchasing the building while an applicant for allotment has not done so. The whole philosophy behind rent control legislation is to protect tenants who are assumed to be the weaker party, though it may not always be so in fact, from being evicted at will by the landlords. Indeed, Uttar Pradesh is perhaps the only State having provisions for allotment of buildings in favour of private parties. Normally if a building is required for a public purpose then the authorities can requisition the building and transfer it to the person who is to occupy it by way of licensee from Government. Indeed, Uttar Pradesh is perhaps the only State having provisions for allotment of buildings in favour of private parties. Normally if a building is required for a public purpose then the authorities can requisition the building and transfer it to the person who is to occupy it by way of licensee from Government. The constitutionality of the provisions for allotment in favour of private persons, as against an owner who has no intention to let out the building at all, is very much open to question, but it is not before this Court in the instant case. Assuming therefore that the provision is justifiable and valid, does it follow that the provision should further be extended in such a manner as to shut out the claim of the owner of a building even from being considered by the designated authorities? In other words, should the court go further even than the legislature and declare that the landlord has no right to occupy a building even for his genuine personal need and that he must step aside and helplessly watch the third parties claims alone being considered for allotment. There appears no justification for such judicial extension of the policy of the legislature. The rulings referred to above do not therefore require reconsideration. 6. The mere fact that the landlord who has made the release application is a purchaser subsequent to the occurrence of the vacancy is irrelevant. In these quasi-judicial proceedings subsequent event are also required to be looked into. The authorities cannot be asked to shut their eyes to the same. It is only in order to protect sitting tenants that the legislature has provided in Section 21 a minimum period within which a purchaser subsequent to the letting cannot file release; application. No similar protection can be claimed by a mere outsider who has no right, title or Interest in present in the building. 7. I thus find no force In this petition which is hereby dismissed in lime.