JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhawan, J. - On the presentation of this petition it has not been disputed and it is not in issue that is on record from the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 1st March, 1986, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has taken a stance that between the prospective allottees seeking allotment and the landlord seeking release of the premises in question, the hearing on the allotment applications would remain in abeyance until the release application of the landlord has been considered first. In effect the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order of 1st March, 1986 aforesaid held that the consideration of the applications of the prospective allottees seeking allotment would be contingent upon the decision of the release application of the landlord. The Rent Control and Eviction officer was not wrong when he set a priority on the release application of the landlord for consideration as this view was in consonance of judgment of this Court delivered by a Full Bench and reported in AIR 1986 Alld. 196 : 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB) Talib Hussain v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital. This view was also in keeping with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in re : Dr. Smt. Kaushal Devi v. Girdhari Pohawa, AIR 1987 SC 22 : 1987 (1) ARC 6 (SC). It was held that the object and purpose of the notice to the landlord regarding date fixed for allotment proceedings is to enable him to file his objections if any, to the allotment proceedings or make an application for release of the premises as contemplated by Section 16 (3) (a) of the Act or to nominate a tenant of his choice, If he himself is a occupation of the petition of the building Thus, consideration of allotment on the application of the prospective allottee without first hearing the release application of the landlord would be an illegal exercise of jurisdiction in view of the decision of the Full Bench and the Supreme Court aforesaid. 2. After the order of 1st March, 1986, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to consider the release application by order of 7th April, 1986 and release the accommodation in question to the landlord. 3. 2. After the order of 1st March, 1986, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to consider the release application by order of 7th April, 1986 and release the accommodation in question to the landlord. 3. Against the aforesaid two orders dated 1st March, 1986 and 7th April, 1986 no revision was filed under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, but the present writ petition has been preferred by the prospective allottee. There is no error in the two orders which are sought to be impugned so that this Court may exercise its jurisdiction on the present petition and, thus, declines to do so. 4. It may further the brought on record that if the prospective allottee had a grievance then he ought to have taken recourse to alternate proceedings under Act aforesaid within the time set in the aforesaid Act which apparently has not been done. 5. The present petition has been moved after more than one year since the impugned orders had been delivered. It is true that no limitation bars the presentation of a writ petition if presented after 90 days, but this court does expect that a petitioner should invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court at least within a reasonable time. The present writ petition has not been presented before this Court within a reasonable time and for yet another reason this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere in so far as writ petition is concerned, with the orders dated 1-3-1986 and 7-4-1986. 6. The petition is dismissed.