JUDGMENT R.P. Singh, J. - The short question involved in the present case is whether the prospective allottee has any right to be heard while deciding the application of the landlord for the release of the accommodation in dispute. This writ petition has been filed by the prospective allottee against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, dated 22-12-1986 holding that he (prospective allottee) has no right to be heard while deciding an application for the release of the accommodation in dispute. This point is concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Talib Hasan and another v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, 1986 (1) ARC 1, where it is held that 'the right of prospective allottee is not an absolute right. It is contingent upon firstly', the accommodation being vacant and secondly, the building being available for allotment. Rule 13(4) of the Rules, framed under the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as it stands in present cases this conclusion. It provides that no allotment in respect of a buildings covered by an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, shall be made unless such application is rejected. The right of prospective allottee to have his application for allotment considered, hence, arises only after the rejection of the landlord's application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, for release, prospective allottee comes into picture only after the disposal of the landlord's application for release under Section 16(1)(b) and only if the same is rejected." Similar view has been taken also in the case of Narendra Kumar v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut and another, 1987 ALJ 397 : 1987 (1) ARC 137 that the prospective allottee has no locus standi to contest the application for release of the accommodation moved by the landlord. 2. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who are landlords in the case, are residing outside Agra in connection with their employment or profession and their aim is to get the vacant possession of the premises in dispute in order to make huge profit by selling the building as vacant building. 2 and 3, who are landlords in the case, are residing outside Agra in connection with their employment or profession and their aim is to get the vacant possession of the premises in dispute in order to make huge profit by selling the building as vacant building. This averment has been denied in the counter-affidavit wherein it is categorically stated that Respondent No. 3 is posted at Agra and Respondent No. 2, who is a Doctor, will retire in September, 1987 and the allegations regarding the selling of the building in question at a fancy price are totally wrong and denied. Hence there is no force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Next it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it has been averred in the writ petition that Respondents 2 and 3 own several houses in the City of Agra and do not require the premises in dispute, This averment has been denied in the counter-affidavit filed of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 wherein it is stated the allegations made in Paragraph 7' of the writ petition are denied and are baseless. However, in view of the settled law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Talib Hasan (supra) that the prospective allottee has no locus standi to contest an application for the release of the accommodation by the landlord, the petitioner, who is a prospective allottee, does not come picture till the application for release moved by the landlord has been rejected. Hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to contest the application release. 4. In the result, there appears merits in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Thee stay, order dated 6-1-1987 is vacated. 5. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges, within three days.