S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) ACCOMMODATION in dispute after being declared vacant was refused to be released in favour of landlord petitioner by R. C. and E. O. through order dated 24. 12. 1993. Against the said order, petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 3 of 1994. ( 3 ) AFTER rejection of release order, building in dispute was allotted to respondent no. 2 Sri Rajesh Pandey through order dated 29. 12. 1993. Sri Rajesh pandey filed an application for impleadment in Rent Revision No. 3 of 1999. IIIrd A. D. J. , Kanpur Nagar through order dated 19. 9. 1995 rejected the impleadment application, however, it was directed that Sri Rajesh Pandey the allottee could participate in the proceedings. It is this permission, which is pinching the landlord, hence he has come to this Court. This writ petition was filed by three persons, i. e. Umesh Chandra Shukla, Kumari Lakshmi Shukla and Smt. Neelam Shukla. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioners no. 1 and 2 have died leaving behind petitioner No. 3 Smt. Neelam shukla as their only legal representative. Accordingly, the names of petitioners no. 1 and 2 are deleted from the array of the parties. ( 4 ) THE argument of learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri Rajesh pandey the allottee is that after rejection of release application on 24. 12. 1993, building in dispute was allotted to him on 29. 12. 1993, he has got interest in the matter. However in view of Full Bench authority of this Court in Talib Husain v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, 1986 12 ALR 113, prospective allottee has got no right to oppose the release application of the landlord. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has argued that status of respondent No. 2 is not that of prospective allottee but he is allottee as subsequently building was allotted to him. Be that as it may, still he has got no right to oppose the release application under section 16 of the Act. Such an application is a matter exclusively in between landlord and R. C. and E. O. ( 5 ) IT has further been argued that against allotment order dated 29. 12. Be that as it may, still he has got no right to oppose the release application under section 16 of the Act. Such an application is a matter exclusively in between landlord and R. C. and E. O. ( 5 ) IT has further been argued that against allotment order dated 29. 12. 1993 also revision was filed by the landlords but the said revision was dismissed in default in 2001 and restoration application has also been rejected. ( 6 ) ALLOTMENT order is dependent upon rejection of release application. If the order rejecting the release application is ultimately set aside by the revisional Court and building in dispute is release in favour of the landlord, then allotment order would automatically vanish. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is allowed. The observation of the Lower revisional Court in the impugned order to the effect that he (i. e. Rajesh pandey) can participate in the proceedings is set aside. ( 8 ) REVISIONAL Court is directed to decide the revision very expeditiously. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, in case petitioner delays the proceedings of revision, then respondent no. 2 would be entitled to file fresh impleadment application after one year from today. Petition Allowed. .