JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 3.9.2013 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply) Varanasi as well as order dated 8.10.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Varanasi. Vide order dated 3.9.2013, application dated 13.9.2012 filed by the respondent, for issuance of Form-C, has been allowed. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 8.10.2014, revision filed by the petitioner, against the order dated 3.9.2013, has been dismissed. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the allegation that the petitioner happens to be tenant of three rooms, including one room on second floor alongwith tin shade and open roof situated in House No. CK-8/8 Mohalla Garhwasi Tola, Coty Varanasi. Seeking release of the accommodation in dispute, the respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Sri Shivji Mahadevji Devtan Virajman v. State of U.P. and others), which was rejected on 28.2.1996 on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists in between the petitioner and landlady. It is stated that thereafter an application was filed for declaring the vacancy and release of accommodation. The said application was rejected on 22.2.1997. Against that order, the respondent No. 2 had filed Revision No. 89 of 1997, which was allowed on 20.2.1999 by setting aside the order dated 22.2.1997 by the Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi. It is thereafter, the vacancy was declared on 31.5.1999. Challenging the order declaring the vacancy, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33751 of 1999, which was dismissed on 16.7.2012. Prior to that, vide order dated 21.8.1999, release application was allowed. 3. Thereafter on 13.9.2012, the respondent herein has filed an application for issuing Form-C on the strength of the release order dated 21.8.1999. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply) Varanasi vide order dated 16.8.2013. Thereafter vide order dated 3.9.2013, Form-D has also been issued. 4. 3. Thereafter on 13.9.2012, the respondent herein has filed an application for issuing Form-C on the strength of the release order dated 21.8.1999. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply) Varanasi vide order dated 16.8.2013. Thereafter vide order dated 3.9.2013, Form-D has also been issued. 4. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed Revision, before the Additional District Judge Varanasi, which was numbered as Revision No. 194 of 2013 (Smt. Uma Devi v. Indrani Sharma), on the ground that the release application filed by the respondent under Section 21 (1) (a) was rejected taking note of the fact that the relation-ship of landlord and tenant did not exist in between the parties and concealing this fact, application, seeking declaration of vacancy and release, was filed, which had illegally been allowed. Further the entire proceeding before Rent Control and Eviction Officer was without jurisdiction as he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. 5. The learned Additional District Judge taking note of the fact that against the order declaring the vacancy, the petitioner’s Writ Petition No. 33751 of 1999 (Uma Yadav (Smt.) v. A.D.M. (Supply) R.C.E.O. and others) was filed, which dismissed vide order dated 16.7.2012. The aforesaid case is in Uma Yadav (Smt.) v. A.D.M. (Supply) R.C.E.O. and others, 2012 (3) ARC 141. After dismissal of the writ petition, the status of the petitioner has become as of unauthorized occupant. So far as the declaration of vacancy is concerned, that order has attained finality as the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order declaring the vacancy was dismissed on 16.7.2012, therefore the validity of the order declaring the vacancy cannot be questioned again. 6. So far as the order of release is concerned, after declaration of the vacancy as has been noticed that the status of the petitioner is of outgoing tenant. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Talib Husain and another v. First Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, 1986 (1) ARC, has held that the application for release under Section 16 of the Act is a matter between the District Magistrate and the landlord where the outgoing tenant or the prospective allottee does not have any right to object. The right of tenant to challenge the order is only limited upto the declaration of vacancy. The right of tenant to challenge the order is only limited upto the declaration of vacancy. The decision of the Full Bench was approved by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Sonkar v. Incharge District Judge and others, 1995 (2) ARC 1. This has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Pal Singh v. District Judge Meerut, 2008(5) ADJ 538 (DB) and J.P. Singh v. R.S. Ojha and others, 2014 (8) ADJ 636 . 7. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench approved by Hon’ble the Apex Court judgment and other decisions of this Court, since the petitioner’s status is of outgoing tenant, therefore he had no right either to contest the release application or to challenge the order passed in the release application as the release of the accommodation is in between the landlord and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.The issuance of Form-C or D is the consequence of the order of the release, therefore no infirmity can be attached while issuing Form ‘C’ and Form ‘D’ by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer or by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Varanasi rejecting the petitioner’s revision against the issuance of Form ‘C’. In view of foregoing discussions, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. The writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. 8. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the more accommodation which was not part of release application, therefore suitable direction may be issued not to evict the petitioner, which was not subject-matter of the declaration of vacancy or release of the accommodation. Sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to grant relief as prayed for by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to take any other legal recourse available to her under law. —————