JUDGMENT Anshuman Singh, J. - This is a landlord's petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the order passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Sharanpur dated 21-1-1987 dismissing the revision of the petitioner landlord against the order passed by the Rent Control Eviction Officer dated 18-3-1986 be quashed. Before the writ petition was admitted the respondent No. 8 was directed to file the counter-affidavit. Counter and rejoinder have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties and as provided under the Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, this petition is disposed of finally. 2. I have heard Sri K.B.L. Gaur learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S. Nigam learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner, who is a landlord moved an application under Section 16(1) (b) for release of the accommodation in question before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Saharanpur. An application for allotment was also filed by the respondent No. 8 before the Prescribed Authority. It appears that the respondent No. 8 who was a prospective allottee filed certain documents to establish that the accommodation in dispute had fallen vacant and was available for allotment in the case relating to the application for release. The filing of the said documents was resisted by the landlord petitioner as they were filed in the case relating to release application filed by the landlord No. 8 of 1985. However, the objection raised on behalf of the landlord petitioner regarding the admissibility of the said documents did not find favour with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and he admitted the said documents in evidence. Landlord petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred a revision purporting to be under Section 18 of the Act which was dismissed by the impugned order passed by the IInd Additional District Judge. The fact that the respondent No. 8 is a prospective allottee has not been disputed before me by the counsel for the respondent No. 8. The proposition of law that the prospective allottee cannot object the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord after it has fallen vacant is also not disputed before me by the counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. H.S. Nigam learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8 contended that Mr. The proposition of law that the prospective allottee cannot object the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord after it has fallen vacant is also not disputed before me by the counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. H.S. Nigam learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8 contended that Mr. Jain, who is a prospective allottee wanted to establish the fact of vacancy by filing the said document. In reply to the said arguments Mr. K.B.L. Gaur has contended that since there was no dispute regarding the vacancy, the documents filed by the prospective allottee is wholly irrelevant so far as the release application is concerned. 5. I have given my throughful consideration to the contentions raised on either side and have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Revisional Court so far as the question of allotment is concerned it comes only after the application for release of the accommodation by the landlord is dismissed. In view of the said fact, I quash the order of the IInd Additional District Judge and also that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and direct the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to dispose of the application filed by the landlord for release first and in case he dismisses the application for release of the landlord petitioner, he will proceed to determine the applications for allotment of the accommodation filed by the applicant for allotment including the prospective allottee according to law. 6. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to decide the case in accordance with the observations made above. The parties shall bear their own costs.