S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) VACANCY of the house in dispute was declared on 26. 7. 2004 by the r. C. ande. O. Against the said order respondent filed writ petition being Writ petition No. 31491 of 2004 which was dismissed on merit on 31. 1. 2007. Thereafter building in dispute was released in favour of petitioner-landlord by r. C. ande. O. /a. D. M. (Civil Supplies), Varanasi through order dated 24. 7. 2007 passed in Rent Case No. 2 of 2003. Thereafter a review petition was filed by the respondent before R. C. and E. O. on 4. 10. 2007 on the ground that he was not heard before passing of release order. The review application was allowed on 22. 11. 2007 which order has been challenged through this writ petition. ( 3 ) R. C. and E. O. held that by virtue of Supreme Court authority in "yogendra Tiwari v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, 1984 10 ALR (SC) 285. It was essential to hear the occupant also before passing release order under section 16 of the Act and as respondent/occupant had not been heard before passing the order dated 24. 7. 2007 hence it was liable to be reviewed and set aside. ( 4 ) IN the aforesaid authority of Yogendra Tewari the Supreme Court held that before passing order of allotment it was necessary to hear the landlord. It has been held in a Full Bench authority of this Court in Talib Hussain v. Ist additional District Judge, Nainital, 1986 12 ALR 113, that while considering release of the landlord under section 16 of the Act, it is not necessary either to hear the prospective allottee or the occupant. Release is a matter in between landlord and R. C. and E. O. Similar view had been taken by the Supreme Court in Ram narayan Sharma v. Shakuntala Gaur, 2002 48 ALR (SC) 231. Supreme Court in Sudha Agrawal v. Xth Additional District Judge, AIR 1999 SC 2975 has held in para-6 that occupant is not entitled to oppose release application of the landlord under section 16 of the Act. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, it was not necessary to hear the respondent before passing the release order. The release order could not therefore be reviewed on this ground. Writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order dated 22. 11. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, it was not necessary to hear the respondent before passing the release order. The release order could not therefore be reviewed on this ground. Writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order dated 22. 11. 2007 is set aside. ( 6 ) TENANT-RESPONDENT is granted three months time to vacate provided that:-1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the r C and E O to the effect that on or before the expiry. of aforesaid period of three months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-petitioner. 2. For this period of three months, which has been granted to the tenant-respondent to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 4,500/- (at the rate Or Rs. 1,500/- per month)as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the R. C. and E. O. and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-petitioner. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-respondent shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 4,500/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-respondent shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of rs. 2500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing rs. 4,500/- the house in dispute are not vacated on the expiry of three months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after three months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and initiate execution proceedings. Petition Allowed. .