JUDGMENT (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 9-1-1997, releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 4-2-1997, rejecting the review application against the said order. (2.) THE dispute relates to premises No. 24/31 Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar. THE accommodation was declared vacant on 7-10-1993. THE petitioner applied for allot ment of the accommodation in question. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted it to the petitioner on 9-11-1993. THE landlord-respondent No. 2 filed revision against the allotment order on the ground that it was passed without serving any notice on him. THE revision was dismissed on 14-7-1994. He filed writ petition No. 35183 of 1994. THE writ petition was allowed and the allotment order dated 9-11-1993 was quashed. THE petitioner filed Special Leave Petition against the said order. THE Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition with the observation that the petitioner may approach the High Court in review and seek suitable orders. THE petitioner filed an application for review of the order. THE review application was decided on 8-8-1995. THE order of allotment dated 9-11-1993 and 4-7-1994 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties concerned in accordance with law. The landlord-respondent, after the allotment order was set aside, filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation. The application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that there was no bona fide requirement. He also filed an application to issue Commission to inspect certain of premises. The application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The disputed accommodation was released in favour of the landlord on 9-1-1997, The petitioner filed application for review under Section 16 (5) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The review application was rejected on 14-2-1997. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. (3.) SRI S. M. A. Qazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the need of the landlord was not bonafide and genuine. Admittedly, the petitioner was only an applicant for allotment. The review application was rejected on 14-2-1997. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. (3.) SRI S. M. A. Qazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the need of the landlord was not bonafide and genuine. Admittedly, the petitioner was only an applicant for allotment. A Full Bench of this Court in Talib Hasan and another v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, (1986) 1 ARC 1; held that a prospective allottee has no right to contest the release application filed by the landlord. He comes into picture only after rejection of the landlord's application for release. This decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijai Kumar Sonkar v. Incharge District Judge and others, (1995) 2 ARC 1; wherein it has been held that a prospective allottee has no right to contest the release application. (4.) The second submission is that the petitioner was tenant of the accommodation in question since the year 1985 and he was entitled to occupy the premises in question. THE petitioner never challenged the order declaring the vacancy passed on 7-10-1993. THE disputed accommodation was declared as vacant on the ground that the possession of the petitioner was unauthorised. It is only after the order of declaration of vacancy was passed that the petitioner himself instead of challenging the order of vacancy filed application for allotment of the accommodation in question. Even assuming the allegation of the petitioner as correct, his possession shall be treated as unauthorised in view of Section 13 of the Act which provides that no persons shall occupy in any capacity on behalf of the landlord or tenant otherwise than under order of allotment or release under Section 16 of the Act and if a person so purports to occupy it, shall without prejudice to the provisions of Section 21, be deemed to be unauthorised occupant of such building or part. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nutan Kumar and others v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and others, (1993) 2 ARC 204, it has been held that possession of the person even as a tenant without any allotment can be passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16 of the Act shall be void and the possession of such person will be treated as unauthorised. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Hon'ble Court had remanded the matter to consider afresh as to whether a landlord was served with the notice before passing of the allotment order on 9-11-1993, but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not decide this Session. A perusal of the order of the High court, which has been annexed as annexure-3 (c) to the writ petition, indicates that the allotment order was set aside on the finding that respondent No. 2 was not served with the notice. The order reads as follows:- "in the revisional order dated 14-7-1994, annexure-14 to the petition, it has been stated that notice was given to the landlord but there is no good evidence that any such notice was served on the landlord. Hence, I set aside the order dated 14-7-1994 and 9-11-1993 and remand the matter to respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties concerned in accordance with law. "After the finding was recorded by this Court that the notice was not served upon the landlord, respondent No. 1 was not required to decide afresh about the service of notice on the landlord-respondent. (5.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then urged that this Court remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with the direction that the parties concerned will be given opportunity of hearing on all the points which may be raised by the petitioner. The right to the petitioner to be heard was only to the extent that if he claims any right in the disputed accommodation to occupy, it shall be duly considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on remand of the case. It was open to the petitioner to establish that he had acquired any right to continue to remain in the premises in question. He never claimed that he was in possession prior to the year 1976 and was entitled to regularisation of his right of tenancy under Section 14 of the Act. On the other hand, he filed affidavit dated 24-1-1997 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and in the said affidavit he stated that the landlord had let out the accommodation in the year 1985. He was thus not entitled to any benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. On the other hand, he filed affidavit dated 24-1-1997 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and in the said affidavit he stated that the landlord had let out the accommodation in the year 1985. He was thus not entitled to any benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. As held above, his occupation treated from the year 1985 shall be treated as unauthorised in view of Section 13 of the Act. (6.) IN view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.