JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed for cancellation of allotment letter dated 17.2.1998 vide Annexure - 13 for non-payment of rent regularly. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a shop was allotted in favour of the present Petitioner on monthly rent vide Agreement dated 3.2.1996. As the Petitioner failed to deposit the monthly rent, the allotment stood cancelled by the impugned order dated 17.2.1998. 3. In fact in the petition itself it has been mentioned that immediately after cancelling the allotment of shop, the vacancy had been advertised for public auction and the Petitioner had also participated in the said auction. However, it had been allotted in favour of opposite party No. 3. 4. In the aforesaid factual background the petition was filed for cancellation of allotment of shop and prior to intervention of the Court the allotment had been made in favour of opposite party No. 3 and it is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner today that the tenancy in favour of opposite party No. 3 has also been cancelled for non-payment of rent of the shop and the same is lying vacant and the shop is likely to be re-advertised for fresh tenancy rights. 5. In these facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner for the reason that after cancellation of the allotment in favour of the Petitioner, opposite party No. 3 has enjoyed the tenancy rights for long and he loses all liens, rights and interest over the property. He can participate in the auction if held afresh. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as the Petitioner had been earlier granted tenancy right in respect of the shop in question, he may be granted some preference over others in fresh grant. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the above submission contending that no such privilege can be conferred upon the Petitioner. Matter relates to non-statutory contract. It is not permissible for this Court even to entertain the petition as the real dispute is between landlord and tenant. In order to fortify his submissions very heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohan Pandey and Another Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Others, . 8. We have considered the last submission. It is not permissible for this Court even to entertain the petition as the real dispute is between landlord and tenant. In order to fortify his submissions very heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohan Pandey and Another Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Others, . 8. We have considered the last submission. The benefit of preference can be claimed by a party on the exceptional circumstances. 9. In Sher Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 providing for preference to the State Transport Undertaking by grant of permit and explained the meaning of 'preference' as under: 6....The expression 'preference' amongst others means prior right, advantage, precedence etc. But how would it be possible to give precedence one over the other? It signifies that other things being equal, one will have preference over the others. 10. In Executive Officer Vs. E. Tirupalu and others, C.R. Siva Reddy and another, T. Venkateswarlu and another, C. Vani the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where rules provide for preference to a particular class of candidates, that preference under the Rules Cannot be applied irrespective of the merit of candidates. It means that the merit of the candidates being equal, preference would be given to the persons belonging to the class which is to be given preferential right and it certainly does not mean an automatic appointment without considering the cases of other candidates. Therefore, even if the rules provide for preferential right, candidates having such subjects would have preferential right only when they compete with other candidates and are found on equal footings, otherwise not. 11. In Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P. Dilip Kumar and Another, and Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health and F.W. and Another Vs. Dr. Anita Puri and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same view. 12. The Supreme Court in The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu and Others dealing with the issue held as under: The "preference" envisaged in the Rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. The Supreme Court in The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu and Others dealing with the issue held as under: The "preference" envisaged in the Rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. A mere rule of preference meant to give weightage to the additional qualification cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or rule of complete precedence....It is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for consideration. On the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection. Preference, in the context of all such competitive scheme of selection would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred. (emphasis added) 13. In State of U.P. and Another Vs. Om Prakash and Others after considering the earlier judgments on the issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the word "preference" would mean that when the claims of all candidates who are, eligible and who possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement are taken for consideration and when one or mule of them are found equally positioned, then only the additional qualification may be taken as a tilting factor, in favour of candidates vis-a-vis others in the merit list prepared by the Commission. But "preference" does not mean en block preference irrespective of inter se merit and suitability. 14. Thus, in view of the above, the Petitioner cannot claim any preference over others. At the most he has a right to participate in auction proceedings, if held afresh. 15. The petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed