JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner is a subsidiary of National Textile Corporation which is a Central Government Corporation. The position of the petitioner was that of a sub-tenant. 3. Dr. C.M. Pant was the landlord of the shop in dispute. He let out the same to respondent No. 3, Shrawan Kumar Mehra. Dr. C.M. Pant sold the said shop to opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 on 2.11.1982. They are owners and landlord of the said shop since then. The respondent No. 3 continued to be a tenant. 3. Before opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 became landlords, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 on 5.9.1977. According to that agreement, the said shop was offered to the petitioner for the purpose of opening a show-room and running its business in the same. The respondent No. 3 was only to get commission from the petitioner @ 3.5% on retail and 1% on whole sale subject to a minimum of Rs. 1700 and maximum of Rs. 2800 per month. The said show-room was to be run and managed by the petitioner through its authorised person. The agreement was to lease for five years in the first instance, with an option of renewal for another five years. However, it could be done only by mutual agreement. 4. Dr. C.M. Pant, the then landlord, only permitted the respondent No. 3 to start N.T.C. work in the shop. 5. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement which was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, the petitioner could continue the said shop for a maximum period of ten years which came to an end admittedly in the year 1987. Even if the petitioner was a sub-tenant, the relationship between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner came to an end in 1987, and thereafter, the petitioner became an unauthorised occupant. 6. On 20.12.1982 opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) read with Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, stating that opposite party No. 3 had sub-let the accommodation to the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Act was applicable to the accommodation. The petitioner was a sub-tenant. 7. 6. On 20.12.1982 opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) read with Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, stating that opposite party No. 3 had sub-let the accommodation to the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Act was applicable to the accommodation. The petitioner was a sub-tenant. 7. Further case of the landlords was that opposite party No. 3 had removed the entire effects from the shop, the possession of the same was given to the petitioner to run exclusively its business. The opposite party No. 3 has nothing to do with the running of the shop. He was only to get certain percentage of commission on the sale done by the petitioner. 8. The Rent Control Inspector visited the shop and conducted enquiry. He submitted his report on 10.1.1983 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that the business was exclusively being run by the petitioner through its employees in the said shop. He was of the opinion that there was a deemed vacancy under Section 12(a)(b) of the Act. 9. After getting the report from the Inspector, notices were issued to the petitioner as well as to opposite party No. 3 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. They were heard. On being satisfied that the provisions of Section 12(a) and (b) of the Act were attracted in the present case, he declared the vacancy on 18.5.1983. 10. Against the order declaring the vacancy, the opposite party No. 3 filed a review petition on 10th June, 1983, which was dismissed on 22nd October, 1983. 11. The order declaring the vacancy became final. The opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 filed an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act for release of the said accommodation. Allotment applications were also filed. The petitioner was one of the applicants for allotment. 12. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the allotment as well as release application together. Against that, they filed revision No. 172 of 1985 before the learned District Judge, Bareilly. The said revision was allowed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Bareilly on 2.3.1987 holding that the need of the landlords was bonafide. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the release application of the landlords. He passed an order releasing the said accommodation in favour of the landlords. 13. The said revision was allowed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Bareilly on 2.3.1987 holding that the need of the landlords was bonafide. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the release application of the landlords. He passed an order releasing the said accommodation in favour of the landlords. 13. The order of learned VIII Additional District Judge was in consonance with Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Talbb Hasan v. Additional District Judge, 1986(1) ARC 1. The settled view of law today is that a prospective allottee has got no right to be heard in the matter of release. It is a matter strictly between the District Magistrate and the landlord. No other person is entitled to participate in the said proceedings and file objection. The Prescribed Authority was bound under law to decide the release applications for allotment. While considering the release application, the Prescribed Authority is not required to record a finding on the question of bonafide need by comparing the same with that of the tenant. Of course, the District Magistrate has to be satisfied before passing the order that need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine. 14. Against the order dated 2.3.1987 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, the opposite party No. 3 filed writ petition No. 4743 of 1987 in this Court. On 12.3.1987 the following order was passed in that petition : "Further orders will be passed on the matter relating to the ad interim orders on 24th March, 1987. Thus till further orders the operation of the order dated 2nd March, 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bareilly in Rent Revision No. 172 of 1985, Jai Narain Mehrotra and others v. Shravan Kumar Mehra and others, and also dated 2.3.1987, passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Bareilly in Rent Revision No. 175 of 1985, Shravan Kumar Mehra v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall remain stayed". 15. The above quoted interim order was extended on 14.7.1987, by another single Judge. Thereafter, opposite-party No. 9 moved an application for withdrawal of the writ petition, and on 12.2.1990 the following order was passed by this Court : 16. "The petition is dismissed as withdrawn". Thus, the effect of the order passed by this Court on 12.2.1990 is that the order of release dated 2.3.87 passed in favour of respondent Nos. Thereafter, opposite-party No. 9 moved an application for withdrawal of the writ petition, and on 12.2.1990 the following order was passed by this Court : 16. "The petition is dismissed as withdrawn". Thus, the effect of the order passed by this Court on 12.2.1990 is that the order of release dated 2.3.87 passed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the landlords becomes final. 17. After dismissal of the writ petition and vacation of the stay order on 12.2.1990, proceedings under Rule 14 for enforcement of the release order started. On 19.2.1990 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order in Form 'C' and the same was served upon the petitioner which was in unauthorised occupation of the shop on the said date. Against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. 18. Heard Sri V.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M. Dayal appearing for the respondents. 19. While hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court enquired from him as to which legal right of the petitioner has been violated. His only submission was that the petitioner has spent a huge amount of money in establishing the show-room in the said premises and fraud had been played by opposite-party No. 3 in collusion with the landlords. It is hardly a point worth considering in the present petition. At no point of time any relationship came into existence between the petitioner and opposite-party Nos. 4 and 5. No rent was ever paid by the petitioner to them. The petitioner was occupying the said shop on behalf of opposite-party No. 3. He has no locus standi to contest the release application of the landlords. The present petition is misconceived. 21. The main effort of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner may be permitted to continue in possession. I am not inclined to accept this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision reported in 1985 SCFBRC 345 (SC), Barbana Lal v. Jagmohan Saran. The appellant of that case was a tenant. The respondent-landlord filed on application under Section 12 read with Section 16 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 alleging that the accommodation had been sub-let to one Yadram. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision reported in 1985 SCFBRC 345 (SC), Barbana Lal v. Jagmohan Saran. The appellant of that case was a tenant. The respondent-landlord filed on application under Section 12 read with Section 16 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 alleging that the accommodation had been sub-let to one Yadram. The Prescribed Authority rejected the landlord's application holding that the appellant had established that he was conducting his business of selling vegetables in the shop and Madan Lal was sitting only on his behalf. This finding was upheld by the first Appellate Court. The landlord filed a writ petition. The High Court declined to accept the appellant's case that he was carrying the business of selling vegetables when he was already carrying on brick-kiln business and cold storage. The High Court further held that the accommodation must be deemed to be vacant. It remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for passing orders. On appeal the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and confirmed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the first Appellate Court on finding that Madan Lal was sitting in the shop and selling vegetables on behalf of the appellant and there was no sub-letting. 22. This decision of the Supreme Court is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. Here in this case the petitioner himself has filed the copy of the agreement, according to which the possession was delivered to it by opposite-party No. 3 to establish its showroom and sell its products. Opposite-party No. 3 was only to get certain percentage on commission and had nothing to do with the same. Entire affects were removed from the disputed shop by opposite-party No. 3 and it was a clear case of vacancy in view of Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Act. 23. In the last, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the Act itself was not applicable in view of the provisions of Section 3(o)(p) of the Act. It is significant to note that the petitioner has come forward to this Court with this objection, whereas he himself moved a review petition under Section 96(5) of the Act on 27th February, 1990 and pursued the same. It is significant to note that the petitioner has come forward to this Court with this objection, whereas he himself moved a review petition under Section 96(5) of the Act on 27th February, 1990 and pursued the same. In that proceeding he says that the Act is applicable while here it is said that the Act is not applicable. He cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. Even if the Act is not applicable, what right the petitioner has which needs protection of this Court ? Obviously, the answer is that he has no legal right. 24. I find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.