JUDGMENT S.D. AGARWALA, J. 1. THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' 2. THE facts giving rise to the present case are as follows: THE property in dispute is bouse No. 141A Mohalla Shiv Datt Golaothi district Bulandshahr. THE petitioner, Smt. Shanti Devi, is living in a portion of the said building. THE eastern 2/3rd portion of the building had been let out to the U. P. State Electricity Board. A suit no. 462 of 1969 was filed by the petitioner against the U. P. State Electricity Board for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. This suit was decreed on 25th May, 1974. Against the order dated 25th May, 1974 a revision was filed before the Distt. Judge on the 23rd April, 1976. After the revision was dismissed by the District Judge, the petitioner moved an application for execution of the decree on 9th July, 1976. This execution application was registered as Execution Case No. 39 of 1976. In execution of her decree, the petitioner got possession of a portion of building let out to the U. P. State Electricity Board, but subsequently it appears that the possession was again taken back from the petitioner and the result was that the petitioner's decree for ejectment remained unexecuted. Against the order passed by the District Judge in revision on 23rd April, 1976, the U. P. State Electricity Board filed a civil revision no. 1684 of 1976 in this Court and obtained stay of the execution of the decree. On 18th July, 1979, the revision was dismissed by the High Court. The ultimate result was that the decree which was passed against the U. P. State Electricity Board became final by the High Court. Before the decree for ejectment became final by the judgment of this Court, the petitioner-landlady also filed an application for release of the accommodation under Section 21 of the Act on 19th February, 1976. This application for release was contested by the U. P. State Electricity Board and ultimately the release application was allowed on 18th February, 1980. Before the decree for ejectment became final by the judgment of this Court, the petitioner-landlady also filed an application for release of the accommodation under Section 21 of the Act on 19th February, 1976. This application for release was contested by the U. P. State Electricity Board and ultimately the release application was allowed on 18th February, 1980. Since the petitioner had already taken steps to execute the decree passed in her favour, the U. P. State Electricity Board in the execution proceedings filed an application for grant of time for vacating the accommodation till 30th June, 1980. This application was allowed by the Munsif on 21st February, 1980 and time was granted to the U. P. State Electricity Board to vacate by 30th June, 1980. 3. THAT inspite of the undertaking given by the U. P. State Electricity Board, the accommodation was not vacated. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application for execution requesting the Munsif to execute the decree, but for one reason or the other, this matter remained pending. The petitioner has attached the order-sheet of the execution case to the petition as Annexure 9. During the pendency of this execution application, Bhagirath Sharma, respondent no. 3 moved an application for allotment of the accommodation. On this application, on the basis of the report obtained from the Inspector on 7th January, 1983, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the house vacant on 13th January, 1983. Subsequently, on 11th March, 1982, an allotment order was passed in favour of respondent no. 3 Bhagirath Sharma. As soon as the petitioner came to know of this allotment order, she filed an application to set aside the exparte allotment. The petitioner also filed an application for stay, but she could not succeed in the same and ultimately the possession of the property was delivered to respondent no. 3. The petitioner, thereafter filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act being rent control revision no. 3 of 1983, challenging the allotment order passed in favour of respondent no. 3. This revision was dismissed on 31st May, 1984. It is against this order that this petition has been filed challenging this order. 4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions before me. 3 of 1983, challenging the allotment order passed in favour of respondent no. 3. This revision was dismissed on 31st May, 1984. It is against this order that this petition has been filed challenging this order. 4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions before me. The first contention is that once the order of release was passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property (it cannot be ?) allotted to respondent no. 3, the allotment order is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The second contention is that he was not given an opportunity by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before declaring the accommodation as vacated and as such, the allotment order is invalid and the third submission made by learned counsel is that the petitioner was not given a notice as required by Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act and as such also the allotment order is void in law. In so far as second and third contentions are concerned it is not necessary for me to go into the detailed facts in regard to these contentions, as I am of the opinion that the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. If after the release application was allowed, no allotment order could have been passed in respect of the accommodation in dispute, the question whether the petitioner had knowledge or was issued notice in regard to the declaration of vacancy before passing the allotment order, becomes wholly redundant. 5. SECTION 21 of the Act provides that the Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy and any specific part thereof if it is satisfied that the building is bonafide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family or any person for whose benefit it is held by him for residential purpose. Under SECTION 23 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority has been empowered to enforce the order of release passed under SECTION 21 of the Act. Under SECTION 23 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority has been empowered to enforce the order of release passed under SECTION 21 of the Act. Object of SECTIONS 21 and 23 of the Act is that the landlord in whose favour the application under SECTION 21 of the Act has been allowed and the release order has been passed, is entitled to get possession of the property. Once the landlord is entitled to get possession of the property, the question of declaring it as vacant for the purpose of allotment does not arise. 6. SECTION 16 deals with allotment and release of vacant building. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Act is relevant for the purpose of this case and hence is quoted below:- "16. Allotment and release of vacant building- (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the District Magistrate may by order- (a) require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant, or is about to fall vacant, or a part of such building but not apartment land alone, to any person specified in the order (to be called an allotment order); or (b) ....................................................................order):" From a perusal of clause (a) quoted above, it is clear that the District Magistrate has been empowered to pass an allotment order only in respect of property which has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant and further the provisions of clause (a) are subject to the other provisions of the Act. In view of the above provisions it is clear that once the building has been released in favour of the landlord, the question of its having fallen vacant or being about to fall vacant does not arise and in respect of such a building, the District Magistrate does not have power to pass any allotment order. In my opinion, consequently, once the release application has been allowed in respect of a building, the said building ceased to be subject to allotment and no allotment order can at all be passed in favour of any other person allotting the building in his favour. In my opinion, consequently, once the release application has been allowed in respect of a building, the said building ceased to be subject to allotment and no allotment order can at all be passed in favour of any other person allotting the building in his favour. In Sultan Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority, Hon'ble N. D. Ojha, J. (as he then was) held as follows:- "It is settled law that if an application for release under section 21 (1) of the Act is made, the landlord is not called upon to obtain a further order of release from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer nor has the said Officer any jurisdiction to allot the accommodation to anyone else." I fully agree with the dictum laid down by Hon'ble N. D. Ojha, J. In the instant case it is not disputed that the building in question was released in favour of the landlady after due contest on 21st April, 1980. In the circumstances the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction at all to pass any allotment order in respect of the said building and as such, clearly the order of allotment passed on 11th March, 1983 in favour of respondent no. 3 is wholly without jurisdiction. The view to the contrary taken by the revisional court in its judgment dated 31st May, 1984 is manifestly erroneous. In the impugned order dated 31st May, 1984, the revisional court did not rely upon the order passed under section 21 of the Act releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlady on the ground that an application under section 16 of the Act should have been filed by the landlady. Once a release application had been allowed under section 21 of the Act, the revisional Court had no jurisdiction at all to consider the validity of the said release order. The revisional court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in sitting over judgment passed on 18th February, 1980, allowing the release application under section 21 of the Act in favour of the landlady. The revisional court had no jurisdiction at all to enter into the validity of the release order. 7. TODAY, when the case was listed for judgment, a joint application has been made by the petitioner and the respondent no. The revisional court had no jurisdiction at all to enter into the validity of the release order. 7. TODAY, when the case was listed for judgment, a joint application has been made by the petitioner and the respondent no. 3, supported by the affidavit of Narendra Kumar, son of the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi, and the affidavit of Bhagirath Sharma, who is the respondent no. 3. In this application, it has been categorically stated that the parties have compromised and they have settled the dispute outside court. It has been agreed upon that the allotment order dated 11th March, 1983, be cancelled. It has been further agreed upon that the respondent no. 3 shall deliver possession of the accommodation to the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi by 26th May, 1987, and in lieu thereof, Smt. Shanti Devi has agreed not to realise any rent for the period the respondent no. 3 continued in possession till he delivers possession by 25th May, 1987. 8. IN view of the view taken by me and the compromise arrived at between the parties, I allow the petition and quash the order dated 31st May, 1984, passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. I further quash the allotment order dated 11th March, 1983. The respondent no. 3 shall hand over possession of the property in dispute to the petitioner by 25th May, 1987. The petitioner shall not charge any rent from the respondent no. 3 from the day the respondent no. 3 took possession of the property till 25th May, 1987. Parties shall bear their own costs.