JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.: - Heard Shri Raghvendra Kumar Singh and Mohd. Altaf Mansoor learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pritish Kumar learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition arises out of release/allotment proceedings under section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Property in dispute is half portion of a house consisting of one hall, 2 bed rooms, one study room, one varandah and latrine bathroom etc. Rest half portion of the house in dispute having same area but containing 4 rooms of smaller size is admittedly in possession of landlords respondents 2 to 6 since 2000. 3 Portion in dispute was initially in tenancy occupation of Shri B.K. Gupta and the portion which is in possession of landlords respondents 2 to 6 since 2000 was previously in tenancy occupation of Indian Overcease Bank which was vacated by it in 2000 and its possession was handed over to the landlords respondents. Initially Shri A.K. Sinha was the landlord who had died on 13.10.1991 leaving behind opposite parties nos. 2 to 6 as his legal representatives. 4 Shri A.K. Sinha the original landlord filed application for release before Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 16 of the Act on 8/12.04.1988 supported by affidavit. The name of the landlord was wrongly typed as S.K.Gupta instead of A.K. Gupta. Release application and affidavit filed in support thereof is annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. In the application it was stated that house was let out to Shri B.K.Gupta on monthly rent of Rs. 450 in the year 1978 who removed his effect from the same in 1982 but kept his lock over the same, hence it was deemed vacant under section12 of the Act. Report was given by Rent Control Inspector that the house was vacant. In the report of the Inspector dated 30.06.1988 (Annexure R.A. 2) it was mentioned that Shri Gupta was paying Rs. 50/- as rent. Petitioner and others also filed allotment applications. The cases were registered as case no. 131 of 1990 Shashi Mohan Bajpayee Vs. S.K. Sinha, (for allotment) and Case No. 102 of 1990 S.K.Sinha Vs. State for release. 5. Vacancy was declared through order dated 27.03.1990 (Anneuxre R.A. 5) by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/A.D.M. City Lucknow. 50/- as rent. Petitioner and others also filed allotment applications. The cases were registered as case no. 131 of 1990 Shashi Mohan Bajpayee Vs. S.K. Sinha, (for allotment) and Case No. 102 of 1990 S.K.Sinha Vs. State for release. 5. Vacancy was declared through order dated 27.03.1990 (Anneuxre R.A. 5) by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/A.D.M. City Lucknow. Thereafter through order dated 05.06.1990 (Annexure R.A. 6) Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the release application on the ground that in the release application itself the landlord had stated that he was serving as Branch Manager in State Bank Bikaner and Jaipur at Kota and had not given any evidence that in which institution at Lucknow his children were studying and where they were residing. Through order dated 14.06.1990 name of the landlord was corrected as A.K. Sinha. A fresh release application had been filed by Shri A.K. Sinha on 28.06.1990 which was again rejected on 03.08.1990. In the said order it was mentioned that Shri A.K. Sinha admitted that earlier release application was also filed by him and that also contained his signatures and he said that he was not in a position to tell that why in the earlier application letter "A" was scored off and letter "S" was written against his name. Again same reason was given for rejecting the release application. 6. On the next date i.e. 04.08.1990 the house in dispute was allotted to the petitioner, true copy of the said order is annexure R.A.9. On the same day order for delivery of possession was passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer copy of which order is Annexure R.A. 10 and rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. It was directed that possession should be delivered by 12.08.1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that possession was delivered to the petitioner on 12.08.1990. 7 Thereafter Shri A.K. Sinha filed 2 revisions one being Revision No. 38 of 1990 directed against the order dated 03.08.1990 rejecting the release application and the other being Revision No. 39 of 1990 against the allotment order dated 04.08.1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that possession was delivered to the petitioner on 12.08.1990. 7 Thereafter Shri A.K. Sinha filed 2 revisions one being Revision No. 38 of 1990 directed against the order dated 03.08.1990 rejecting the release application and the other being Revision No. 39 of 1990 against the allotment order dated 04.08.1990. Both revisions were allowed on 11.03.1991 by 10th A.D.J. Lucknow, copy of the judgment is Annexure R.A. 13 by which orders dated 03.08.1990 and 04.08.1990 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer were quashed and matter was remanded to Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider the release application as well as allotment application in accordance with law and in the light of the directions contained in the body of the order. Against the order dated 11.03.1991 Shri A.K. Sinha himself filed writ petition no. 60 of 1991 in which interim order was passed on 24.04.1991 directing issuance of notice and for listing of the case in July 1991. It was further directed that till then further proceedings in pursuance of order dated 11.03.1991 shall remain stayed. Stay order was directed to continue through order dated 30.07.1991 till next date of listing. Thereafter writ petition was again listed on 24.09.1991 and stay order was directed to continue till the next date. Thereafter the case was not taken up until 14.08.2013 on which date notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel as learned counsel who had filed writ petition was no more. Thereafter the said writ petition was dismissed on 11.09.2013 as no other counsel was engaged by the petitioner, in fact petitioner had died on 13.10.1991. 8. Meanwhile petitioner allottee had also filed restoration application before the learned A.D.J. Who had decided the revisions on 11.03.1991 on which on 07.09.1991 stay order was passed which was to remain in operation till 07.10.1991, the next date. 9. After the death of Shri A.K. Sinha on 13.10.1991 his legal representatives i.e. opposite parties 2 to 6 filed fresh release application on 28.05.1992 before Rent Control and Eviction Officer setting up their own need which was allowed on 07.04.1993, the said order has been challenged through this writ petition. 10. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that firstly proceedings were stayed through order passed in writ petition no. 10. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that firstly proceedings were stayed through order passed in writ petition no. 60 of 1991 which was filed by the landlord himself hence release order could not be passed secondly proceedings had been stayed by A.D.J. himself who had remanded the matter and thirdly petitioner was not provided opportunity to file reply and to oppose the fresh release application filed by opposite parties 2 to 6 on 28.05.1992. 11. In reply learned counsel for opposite parties argued that on 28.05.1992 fresh release application had not been filed, it was only sort of amendment in the original release application and as Shri A.K. Sinha had died hence stay order passed in writ petition no. 60 of 1991 automatically came to an end. It was also argued that stay order granted by learned A.D.J. was not extended. It was also argued that petitioner was aware of filing of fresh release application on 28.05.1992 but he did not file any objection. Learned counsel for contesting opposite parties mainly argued that prospective allottee has got no right to opposite the release application in view of Full Bench authority of Talib Hasan Vs. A.D.J. 1986 (1) A.R.C. 1.. In this regard reliance has been placed upon an authority of this court reported in District President Bhartiya Janta Party Aligarh Vs. Hari Ram Gupta, 2008 (26) LCD 1306 holding that the status of an allottee who has been placed in possession of allotted accommodation is not higher than the status of prospective allottee. 12. The restoration application which was filed by the petitioner before the A.D.J. for setting aside the order dated 11.03.1991 was allowed on 31.03.1998 by 10th A.D.J. Lucknow and judgment and order dated 11.03.1991 pertaining to Rent Revision No. 39 of 1990 relating to allotment was set aside and the said revision was restored. The revision was restored only on the ground that service upon the petitioner was not sufficient. In the said order there is no mention that subsequently release application had been allowed on 07.04.1993 and present writ petition against the said order was pending. 13. After restoration, revision is still pending. 14. The revision was restored only on the ground that service upon the petitioner was not sufficient. In the said order there is no mention that subsequently release application had been allowed on 07.04.1993 and present writ petition against the said order was pending. 13. After restoration, revision is still pending. 14. As far as the composite remand order dated 11.03.1991 passed in both the revisions directed against the rejection of release and order of allotment, is concerned, pursuant thereto release application had been allowed on 07.04.1993 and against that order writ petition was pending in this High Court (this very writ petition). Accordingly revisional court might not have passed the restoration order in case it had been appraised of the said facts. 15. Release application under section 16 of the Act is not to be judged as strictly as the release application under section 21 of the Act. The original landlord had stated that his children were studying at Lucknow. There was nothing on record to show that they were residing any where else except Lucknow. Accordingly release application could not be rejected merely on the ground that landlord could not prove that where they were residing. 16. As far as stay order passed in the writ petition filed by the original landlord is concerned, the original landlord Shri A.K. Sinha died hence writ petition became almost dead. In any case stay order operates from the date of its communication and not from the date of its passing. 17. As far as stay in restoration application by lower revisional court is concerned, according to para 11 of the writ petition, it was not extended beyond 19.03.1993. After death of original landlord there was no question of family of landlord i.e. contesting opposite parties 2 to 6 in this writ petition residing at Kota and there was absolutely no denial of the fact that atleast after death of original landlord they had to reside at Lucknow. In view of the aforesaid Full Bench authority of Talib Hasan as explained by the authority of President B.J.P. Supra, prospective allottee or even an allottee who is in possession but his allotment is challenged has got no right to be heard in opposition to release. 18. Accordingly I find that the earlier order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 03.08.1990 rejecting release application was utterly wrong. 18. Accordingly I find that the earlier order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 03.08.1990 rejecting release application was utterly wrong. I further find that there is absolutely no error in the order dated 07.04.1993 allowing the release application of the contesting opposite parties. 19. The house containing as much accommodation as the house in dispute contains and situate in Lucknow by any stretch of imagination could not be let out for Rs. 50 per month in the year 1990. It was pure loot. Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not mention that on what basis he was fixing the rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Rent Control and Eviction Officer being posted in Lucknow must be aware of the prevalent rent of that time in Lucknow. Landlord had asserted that in 1978 house in dispute was let out for Rs. 450/- per month. Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not say a single word in respect thereof. Rent Control Inspector had only said that he was told that previous tenant was giving Rs. 50/- per month as rent. Rent Control Inspector did not say that who had told the said fact to him. Accordingly his report in this regard was utterly meaning less, waste paper and not admissible in the evidence being hearsay from undisclosed source. Petitioner must have told the Rent Control Inspector about the rent of Rs. 50/- per month so that he could get it allotted on the said ridiculous rent. Petitioner is occupying a house for more than 23 years at the rent of Rs. 50 per month. Current rent may not be less than several thousand Rupees Per month. Accordingly, even if there is some technical error in the impugned order, in exercise of writ jurisdiction the order may not be set aside as setting aside of the said order would give rise to gravely unjust situation resulting in continuance of unjust enrichment to the petitioner. 20. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 21. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that: - 1. Within one month from today tenant-petitioner files an undertaking before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-opposite parties. 2. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that: - 1. Within one month from today tenant-petitioner files an undertaking before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-opposite parties. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 12,000/-( at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-opposite parties. 22. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs.12,000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 23. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs.12,000/- the house in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month since after six 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. 24. Revision No. 39 of 1990 pending before A.D.J. Lucknow shall be consigned to record.