J. C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD petitioners counsel, Sri Yasharth and Sri R. N. Bhalla counsel appearing for the landlords-respondent Nos. 4 to 7. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 29. 8. 97 passed by the Rent Control and eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar making an order of release in favour of the respondents-landlords. Revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed by respondent No. 2 by the order dated 17. 12. 97 passed by Sri M. C. Jain, District Judge. Kanpur nagar. By the same judgment the connected revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed which challenged the order of the Rent Control Officer allowing review application of the landlords. ( 3 ) IT would be a waste of time to narrate the facts as they have already been detailed in the order of the revisional court, whose copy has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. ( 4 ) AS per the finding recorded by the Courts below, it was fully established that an application for release moved on behalf of the landlords was already pending before the Rent Control and eviction Officer when the order of allotment was made in favour of the present petitioner. The said application before the endorsement of the then Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect, "register. S. I. please inquire and report by 24. 12. 77" and the said endorsement was signed by the officer on 26. 11. 77. The allotment Order after declaration of vacancy was made in favour of the petitioner on 29. 8. 79. The landlady filed a review application under Section 16 (5)of the Act but the same was dismissed on 22. 12. 81 against which Rent Revision No. 6/92 was filed. The said revision was allowed by the order dated 25. 11. 83 and case was remanded back to the R. C. and E. O. for a fresh decision. A writ petition was filed before this Court against the aforesaid order of remand but the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court. The said revision was allowed by the order dated 25. 11. 83 and case was remanded back to the R. C. and E. O. for a fresh decision. A writ petition was filed before this Court against the aforesaid order of remand but the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court. ( 5 ) THE Rent Control Officer as well as the revisional court have concluded that since the release application of the landlords was already pending for disposal before the R. C. and E. O. , he could not assume jurisdiction of making an order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that this view of the Courts below is against law. On the contrary, the view taken is absolutely legal. For this proposition of law, a reference may be had to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Talib Hasan v. Ist Addl. District Judge, nainital, 1986 (1) ARC 1. ( 6 ) IN a recent decision in Swaroop Narain Srivastava v. Vth Additional District Judge, JT 1994 (5) SC 221. the Honble Supreme Court has held that it is nowhere provided either in the Act or in the Rules that an application for allotment of a vacant building should be considered In preference to the application made for release by the landlord. On the other hand. Rule 13 which provides the procedure for consideration of application for release of a vacant building by the landlord, by its sub-rule (4) requires that landlords application for release under the rules shall, as far as possible, be decided within one month from the date of its presentation and no allotment in respect of a building covered by an application in that rule shall be made unless such application has been rejected. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, it is crystal clear that the Rent Control Authority does not get jurisdiction to make an order of allotment till the application for release moved by the landlords is disposed of. It was further contended before the Courts below that review application moved by the landlords under section 16 (5) of the Act was not legally maintainable as at the time of moving of the said application. the landlord was not in occupation nor prior to it. in short. It was further contended before the Courts below that review application moved by the landlords under section 16 (5) of the Act was not legally maintainable as at the time of moving of the said application. the landlord was not in occupation nor prior to it. in short. It was urged before the courts below that when landlord was not proved to be in occupation at any point of time during the preceding, application for review was not maintainable. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Madhu Gopal v. VIth Additional District judge, Agra, 1988 (2) ARC 1. In this decision, it was held that application for review even If filed by landlord who is not in actual physical occupation of the building in dispute is maintainable. Their Lordships interpreted the expression, "claiming to be a lawful occupier of the building" occurring in Section 16 (5) and were of the opinion that these words clarify only the words any other person and not the landlord occurring in subsection (5) of Section 16. The law laid down was that the restriction arising from the aforesaid words cannot be read into section 16 (5) (a) where the person applying for review happens to be the landlord. Thus, the petitioners aforesaid contention was rightly rejected by the Courts below. ( 8 ) IN any view of the matter, once it has been found as a fact that the release application was already pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer when the impugned order of allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, the order of allotment was a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law and could be ignored. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to various office reports made in the proceedings pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which were to the effect that notices be issued to the landlords and on the basis of these reports, it was sought to be argued that had there been any release application pending in the office of R. C. and E. O. , there was no need of issuing notices after the receipt of the report of Rent Control inspector and after the declaration of vacancy. As already pointed out above. As already pointed out above. application for release was ordered to be registered by the order dated 26. 11. 77 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer himself and if some incorrect office report was submitted by the office, it would not follow that no release application was pending. There is neither any material nor evidence to indicate that the release application did not bear the endorsement of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer or his signatures. No other point has been urged by the petitioners counsel. For the above reasons, this writ petition has no force. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then made a request that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in question in order to enable him to make some alternative arrangement. This prayer has been vehemently opposed by the counsel for the landlords on the ground that the petitioner under a non-est order has already enjoyed the fruits of the shop for the last 18 years. ( 11 ) IT is true that the petitioner has already been in the occupation of the shop in question for that much of period but he was not trespasser occupant and he came to occupy the shop under an order purporting to be an order of allotment made by the R. C. and E. O. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I allow the petitioner two months period to vacate the shop in question and deliver its vacant possession to the respondents within the said period, subject to the conditions of his filing an undertaking in writing before the Rent Control and Eviction officer on affidavit that he shall hand over vacant physical possession of the shop in question to the landlords-respondents before the expiry of the said period of two months and shall not induct any other person in the shop and that he shall further pay or deposit the entire amount of damages for use in occupation of the shop in dispute till the date of delivery of possession at the rate of standard rent mentioned in the order of allotment by 30th of March, 1998. Any amount deposited under Section 30 (1) of the Act shall be liable to adjustment and the landlords shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited under Section 30. Any amount deposited under Section 30 (1) of the Act shall be liable to adjustment and the landlords shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited under Section 30. ( 12 ) IN case of default of any of these conditions or in the event of petitioner not furnishing the required undertaking within a period of three weeks from today, the landlords shall be at liberty to get the order of release enforced forthwith according to law. 13. For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 1,000 as costs. .