Sudhir Agarwal, J.;— 1. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.1992 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Civil Defence), Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") rejecting petitioner's release application in respect to certain portion of House No. 48/253, Generalganj, Kanpur and allotting the same to one, Amar Singh Chandel son of Sri Sharda Singh Chandel, respondent no. 3 and revisional order dated 14.07.1999 whereby petitioner's Revision No. 184 of 1992 has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mere dispute between the two co-landlords would not have justified rejection of release application. He further contended that on the same date when release application is rejected the RCEO could not have made allotment and this procedure adopted by him is illegal. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Smt. Madhur Lata alias Madhu Lata Vs. Addl. District Judge (Uttarakhand Case), Dehradun and another, 1997(3) AWC 1487 . 5. However, I find no force in any of the submissions. Herein a case where the accommodation in question has several co-landlords including Smt. Surja Devi, respondent no. 5 and petitioner. The record shows that Smt. Surja Devi has been the landlord of accommodation in question inasmuch as the outgoing tenant was allotted said accommodation with the consent of Smt. Surja Devi and rent was paid by outgoing tenant to Smt. Surja Devi. These facts have been found proved on the basis of evidence on record and these findings have not been shown perverse or incorrect. In the municipal assessment record also the name of Smt. Surja Devi is mentioned as one of the landlord. Further after intimation of vacancy given by outgoing tenant to RCEO, Smt. Surja Devi made nomination in favour of Amar Singh Chandel, respondent no. 3. 6. In the municipal assessment record also the name of Smt. Surja Devi is mentioned as one of the landlord. Further after intimation of vacancy given by outgoing tenant to RCEO, Smt. Surja Devi made nomination in favour of Amar Singh Chandel, respondent no. 3. 6. Once a co-landlord has made a recommendation/nomination in favour of a person for making allotment, it is treated to be a recommendation made by all the co-landlords inasmuch as in the present case the petitioner though submitted an application requesting for release of accommodation in question but it is not his case that he has also filed an application opposing or objecting to nomination made by Smt. Surja Devi. 7. Besides, the RCEO has rightly found, where there are several co-landlords of a building within the ambit of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and a release application is filed by one co-landlord, while another co-landlord move application for allotment of vacancy to another person, the release application stands objected by another co-landlord and such release application cannot be allowed only on the request of one co-landlord for the reason that here is not a case where other co-landlords have not raised any voice contrary to what has been said by one co-landlord but here is a case where two landlords are taking different views which are mutually destructive to each other and in such a case an application filed by only one landlord for release of accommodation in question cannot be held maintainable and, therefore, has rightly been rejected by RCEO. 8. Once the release application stands rejected, the accommodation has to be allotted and since in the present case the prospective allottee was a person nominated by a co-landlord, the RCEO in view of Section 17(1) of Act, 1972 has rightly made allotment in favour of such person and in these circumstances there was no question to fix any date for hearing of other prospective allottees. 9. 9. The decision cited at the bar, i.e., Smt. Madhur Lata alias Madhu Lata (supra) has no application in the present case since that was not a case where allotment was made to the person nominated by landlord and, therefore, this Court took a view that after rejection of release application another date has to be fixed to hear all the prospective allottees so as to give them opportunity for placing their own case before competent authority. 10. In the above facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _____________