JUDGMENT S.C. Verma 1. In this petition, the order dated 7-10-1986 under Section 18 of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'? cancelling the allotment order dated 20-6-1979 has been challenged. 2. The main controversy in the present case starts after the vacancy in respect of premises no. 2206, Dampier Nagar, Mathura was notified in accordance with the directions contained in Writ Petition No. 1580 of 1976 dated 17- 5-1979. The deemed vacancy was notified inviting applications for allotment on 26-5-1979. The applications for allotment were made by Narottam Prasad, the petitioner, on 22-5-1979 by Shyam Sunder, respondent no. 2, on 26-5-1979, Murari Lal Sharma, Chakhleshwar Singh and on behalf of the District Supply Officer. The landlord Sri S. C. Goswami also filed an application for release on 16-5-1979. The application for release was rejected by order dated 18- 6-1979. Thereafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after considering the priority of the applications as also bonafide needs of the applicants, issued allotment order on 20-6-1979 in favour of Sri Narottam Prasad, the present petitioner. The order rejecting the release -application was challenged under Section 18 of the Act in Revision No. 187 of 1979 by Sri S. C. Goswami, the order rejecting the allotment application dated 20-6-1979 was challenged by Shyam Sunder in Revision No. 186 of 1979 and by Murari Lal Sharma in Revision No. 181 of 1979. The order dated 20-6-1979 has been filed as Annexure (1) to the writ petition. All these cases were taken up together and were disposed of by a common judgment in which the Revision of the Landlord was allowed and the order dated 18-6-1979 as also the order dated 20-0-1979, were set aside and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to first decide the release application of the landlord in accordance with law. The order dated 4-2-1981 has been filed as Annexure 2' to the writ petition. The petitioner Narottam Prasad filed writ petition No. 8161 of 1981 challenging the order dated 4-2-1981. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 4-2-1981 was set aside and the learned III Additional District Judge was directed to decide only the revision of respondent no. 2 Shyam Sunder Sharma. The petitioner Narottam Prasad filed writ petition No. 8161 of 1981 challenging the order dated 4-2-1981. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 4-2-1981 was set aside and the learned III Additional District Judge was directed to decide only the revision of respondent no. 2 Shyam Sunder Sharma. The learned Single Judge held : "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned pounsel for opposite party, there can be no doubt that the revising authority committed manifest error of law in allowing revision filed on behalf of the landlord. No doubt the application filed on 3rd February 1976 by landlord does not appear to have been disposed of yet omission on part of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not render the allotment order on 20th June 1979 as illegal or bad in law. As has been stated above that after filing of release application the Rent Control and Eviction Officer regularised the occupation of Sharma whether he was right in doing so or not this amounted to disposal of the release application. In any case if landlord was aggrieved by the order dated 3rd February 1976 he could have either gone up before the higher authorities or could have filed writ petition in this Court. On the other hand it is Socialist Party which moved review application and came to this court by way of Writ Petition. The conduct of the landlord, therefore, is not such as could justifiy setting aside the order of allotment passed after the vacancy was declared by this Court in writ petition. Whatever merit might have been in the claim of the landlord but once this court decided that the premises in dispute shall be deemed to be vacant it was not open to revising authority to set aside the order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground that the landlord's application filed on 3rd February, 1976 was not disposed of". 3. Thereafter, the Revision No. 186 of 1979 Shyam Sunder Sharma v. Narottam Prasad and others was heard by the IIIrd Additional District Judge who specifically observed that in view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court the matter of Sri Shyam Sunder Sharma is only to be considered in this Revision. 3. Thereafter, the Revision No. 186 of 1979 Shyam Sunder Sharma v. Narottam Prasad and others was heard by the IIIrd Additional District Judge who specifically observed that in view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court the matter of Sri Shyam Sunder Sharma is only to be considered in this Revision. The learned Judge was of the view that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer only considered the requirements under Rule 11, the principle of first come first serve but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not consider the respective needs of both the parties. The learned Judge further held that in view of the decisions reported in 1980 ARC 16, 1981 UP RCC 330 and 1985 (2) ARC 160, merely on priority basis under Rule 11 the allotment should not be passed but the bonafide needs of the applicant should also be considered. The learned Judge, after considering the needs of both the parties, recorded a finding that the need of the applicant Shyam Sunder Sharma was bonafide. It was further held that during the pendency of the proceedings, some subsequent events have been taken place. The applicant Shyam Sunder Sharma brought on record the fact of the purchase of the disputed property by his parents, the brother and wife etc. by sale deed dated 27-4-1984. The applicant also claimed that they have already taken possession of the building. All these facts were not disputed on behalf of the petitioner Narottam Prasad in those proceedings. In these circumstances, the Revision on behalf of Shyam Sunder Sharma was allowed and the allotment order dated 20-6-1979 was cancelled by order dated 7-10-1986. 4. In the present petition, the order dated 7-10-1986 has been challenged before me by Narottam Prasad. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after there was deemed vacancy in the disputed accommodation, the petitioner was the first to make the application for allotment it has been alleged that the learned II Additional District Judge was not correct in holding ; that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not consider the applications for allotment on merit. The findings of fact have been recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer holding that the need of the petitioner was bonafide and that Shyam Sunder Sharma was the real brother of Murari Lal Sharma who was held to be in unauthorised occupation by the Hon'ble High Court. The allotment of the premises in favour of Shyam Sunder Sharma would only mean, in other way, to regularise an unauthorised occupant. Murari Lal Sharma having failed in his attempt to get his unauthorised occupation regularised has set up Shyam Sunder Sharma to make the claim for allotment on his behalf. These findings of fact recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, could not be set aside in Revision under Section 18 of the Act which is in parimateria with Section 115 CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Judge has treated that on the event of the premises being acquired by Shyam Sunder Sharma in the capactiy of the landlord, the need was to be considered as if they are considered in respect of release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. In the present case the approach of the learned Judge should have been to consider the respective claims of the applicants for the purpose of allotment but instead, he was greatly influenced by the fact that the applicant Shyam Sunder Sharma has now attained the status of landlord, his claim was to be considered with that aspect. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order on the ground that the findings with regard to the bonafide need are in the nature of jurisdictional fact and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer committed manifest error of law in only considering the claim of the petitioner on the basis of priority. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that after the respondent had purchased the disputed building from its original owner on 27-4-1984 through a registered sale-deed, an application for release under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act was made on 14 10-1986. The application for release was filed after the passing of the order dated 7-10-1986 by which the allotment order dated 20-6-1979 in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the proceedings for allotment or release were open. The application for release was filed after the passing of the order dated 7-10-1986 by which the allotment order dated 20-6-1979 in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the proceedings for allotment or release were open. The release application was heard after issuing notice to the petitioner and after affording full opportunity to him of filing objections. The release application was allowed by the order dated 20-10-1986. It was further stated that the order dated 20-10-1986 was in the knowledge of the petitioner and the same was passed after contest between the parties. The order dated 20-10-1986 has not been challenged in any proceeding and the same has become final between the parties. The certified copy of the order dated 20-10-1986 was filed along with the counter-affidavit which is on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the premises had been released in their favour and they are in occupation for the last several years and have also rebuilt the house after making huge expenditure. 6. Now it has to be first seen as to whether there was any vacancy of the disputed premises and the premises was open for allotment or not. In my opinion, after the order dated 7-10-1986 was passed cancelling the allotment order dated 20-6-1979, the premises was again made available for the allotment or release. No doubt the order dated 7-10-1987 was challenged in the present writ petition but there was no interim order or impediment restraining the Rent Control Authorities from proceeding further in the matter. At this stage, the transferee from the former landlord applied for the release of the premises on 14-10-1986. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on receipt of the release application, issued notice to the petitioner inviting objections. The petitioner filed his affidavit and contested the averments made in the release application. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the need of the landlord and the other affidavits filed in support of the case of the landlord as also the objections of the petitioner. The need of the landlord was found to be bonafide and the premises were released in his favour by order dated 20-10-86. A certified copy of the order dated 20-10-1986 has been filed along with the counter-affidavit. 7. The need of the landlord was found to be bonafide and the premises were released in his favour by order dated 20-10-86. A certified copy of the order dated 20-10-1986 has been filed along with the counter-affidavit. 7. The petitioner thus had full knowledge of the order dated 20-10-1986 but he did not take any steps to challenge the same upto this date. The learned counsel for the petitioner, even after this order was filed along with counter-affidavit, did not take any steps either to. challenge this order before this court by necessary amendment or initiated any fresh proceedings in this regard. This inaction of the petitioner only indicates that be was no longer interested in pressing his claim with regard to the disputed premises. On the other hand, the respondent no. 2 somehow manipulated to retain the possession as also to obtain favourable order in his favour. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts specially the order of release dated 20-10-1986 under Section 16 (11 (b) of the Act releasing the premises in favour of the respondent no. 2, the contest to the order dated 7-10-1986 has remained only for academic purpose. No doubt the aforesaid proceedings by the respondent no. 2 have been very cleverly manipulated but as there was no restrain order during the pendency of this writ petition and as the order of allotment stood cancelled, it cannot be held that the order of release dated 20-10-1986 was illegal, void or without jurisdiction. Moreover this order has not been challenged on merits in any proceedings and has become final. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that no effective relief can now be granted to the petitioner. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.