JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra holding brief of Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal alongwith Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7.5.2011 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate Ist Kanpur Nagar Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘R.C.E.O’) releasing the accommodation in dispute and order dated 16.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 3 Kanpur in Rent Revision No. 45 of 2011 filed against the order dated 7.5.2011. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner claims himself to be tenant in the accommodation in dispute. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for declaring the vacancy and releasing the accommodation in dispute. After contest, the vacancy was declared on 24.2.1997. The order dated 24.2.1997 was challenged before this Court through writ petition No. 39341 of 1997. This writ petitioner was dismissed with the following order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that inspite of several letters the petitioner is not responding. He submits that in this view of the matter the order dated 27.7.2010 could not be complied with. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed and there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner is depositing the damages/rent in lieu of his occupation. Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has shifted to his own shop in the market. Without entering into the merits of the case, as nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner is depositing the damages/rent in lieu of his occupation, hence the petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 27.7.2010. After dismissal of the writ petition by this Court, vacancy was declared by R.C.E.O. on 7.5.2011. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed Revision No. 45 of 2011. The revision was also dismissed. Now the petitioner has challenged the order of release alongwith the order dismissing the revision filed against the order of release. 3. After dismissal of the writ petition by this Court, vacancy was declared by R.C.E.O. on 7.5.2011. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed Revision No. 45 of 2011. The revision was also dismissed. Now the petitioner has challenged the order of release alongwith the order dismissing the revision filed against the order of release. 3. The Full Bench of this Court in Talib Hasan and another v. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, 1986 (1) ARC 1, has held that in the matter of release under Section 16 (1) of the Act, prospective allottee has got no say. Neither he can contest and oppose the release application nor he can file revision against an order allowing the release application of the landlord. The Apex Court also approved the same view in Ram Narayan Sharma v. Shakuntala Gaur, AIR 2002 SC 2204 . Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Ajay Pal Singh v. District Judge, Meerut and others, 2008 (2) ARC 264 . 4. In view of foregoing discussion, as the petitioner’s effort challenging the order declaring the vacancy has failed, his status would be of an unauthorized occupant/prospective allottee, therefore he has no right to challenge the order of release. The writ petition is dismissed. In the last, Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that six months’ time may be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Considering the facts of this case, it is provided that in case the petitioner files an undertaking within a period of three weeks from today before the R.C.E.O. that he will vacate the premises by 31st May, 2014, the eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute shall be kept in abeyance till 31st May, 2014. In case of non filing of the undertaking within the aforesaid period, the R.C.E.O. shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.