JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal,J. 1. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same order hence for the sake of convenience both the writ petitions are being taken together for disposal. 2. The short question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer can decide the release application of the landlord and the allotment application filed on behalf of the prospective allottee together by passing a composite order. 3. The premises in dispute in this writ petition is House No.770 Kalyani Devi Civil Lines, Unnao. The admitted fact is that a part of the aforesaid house comprising of three rooms; one veranda and a bath room was in the tenancy of Mahila Uddami Parishad, Unnao. On vacation of the aforesaid premises by Maliha Uddami Parishad the landlord moved an application for release under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the premises has fallen vacant. The Rent Control Inspector visited the disputed premises and submitted his report. The learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer by 31.7.1995 declared the vacancy in respect of the aforesaid disputed premises. 4. Prior to the declaration of vacancy the petitioner had already moved an application for allotment of the aforesaid premises. The learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer after declaration of the vacancy took both the applications i.e. the application for release moved by the landlord and the application for allotment moved on behalf of the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 61 of 1996 (R/C), together and by the order dated 11.8.1995 he rejected the release application and consequently allotted the premises in favour of the petitioner, namely, Umawer Datt Shukla. The allottee also got possession in pursuance of the allotment order on 28.5.1996 and since then he is in exclusive possession thereof. The landlord feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 11.8.1995, preferred a revision before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act No.13 of 1972 and the revision was also dismissed on 25.5.1996. Consequent to the dismissal of the revision, the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner was confirmed. The landlord feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 11.8.1995, preferred a revision before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act No.13 of 1972 and the revision was also dismissed on 25.5.1996. Consequent to the dismissal of the revision, the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner was confirmed. However, when the copy of the judgment passed by the revisional court was made available to the rent Control and Eviction Officer, he cancelled the allotment order vide order dated 3.6.1996 on the ground that in view of the observations made by the revisional court, the order of allotment was not according to the law. While cancelling the allotment order, the petitioner was also directed to restore back the possession to the landlord. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the cancellation of his allotment order, the allottee has filed Writ Petition No. 61 of 1996 and the landlord being aggrieved by the dismissal of his revision filed Writ Petition No. 59 of 1996 (R/C). 6. I have heard Shri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 61 of 1996 (R/C) and Shri Purshottam Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 59 of 1996(R/C). 7. Shri Purshottam Awasthi while assailing the judgment and order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the revisional court has submitted that under the provisions of Rent Control Act, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is under legal obligation to consider the release application of the landlord first and while considering the release application of the landlord, the prospective allottee has no right to be heard. The allotment application, if any, can be considered only after the release application of the landlord is rejected. He further submits that both the applications i.e. release application of the landlord and allotment application of the prospective allottee, cannot be taken together and disposed of by a composite order. The reason is that even if the release application of the landlord is rejected, he has right to be heard before making any allotment order in favour the prospective allottee. The reason is that even if the release application of the landlord is rejected, he has right to be heard before making any allotment order in favour the prospective allottee. In support of his contention Shri Awasthi has relied upon a decision reported in 1997 (2) ARC 448 Smt. Praveen Azad vs 1st A.D.J. Badaun, in which it has been held that it is a settled law that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot pass an order on the allotment application before the release application filed by the landlord is decided. The prospective allottee has no right to file any objection against the release application. 8. The coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the above mentioned case has relied upon a Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Talib Hasan and another vs. First A.D.J. Nainital and others reported in 1996 (1) ARC 1, in which a Full Bench of this Court has held that a prospective allottee has no right to file an objection against the release application. It has further been held that after the vacancy is declared, the release application of the landlord has to be considered independently without giving any right to the prospective allottee to contest the release application. It is only after the rejection of the release application that application for allotment could be considered and for this a date has to be fixed for hearing of the allotment application, to which a notice is required to be given to the landlord as provided under Rule 9 (3) framed under the Rent Control Act. 9. Reliance has also been placed on a case reported in 2004 (2) ARC 349 , Chandra Kant Nagarkar v Vth ADJ Gorakhpur; in which it has been held that there are three stages in the case of allotment and release and it is essential to issue notice to the landlord at all the three stages. The first stage is before inspection of the premises by the Rent Control Inspector, the second stage is the declaration of vacancy and the 4rd stage is passing any allotment order. If the notice is not issued at any all the three stages, the entire proceedings will be vitiated. The first stage is before inspection of the premises by the Rent Control Inspector, the second stage is the declaration of vacancy and the 4rd stage is passing any allotment order. If the notice is not issued at any all the three stages, the entire proceedings will be vitiated. In the instant case since the rejection of the release application and passing of the allotment order has been done on the same day by passing a composite order, there was no occasion for issuance of any notice to the landlord. 10. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 61 of 1996 (R/C) has assailed the order dated 3.6.1996 whereby the allotment order passed earlier has been cancelled without issuance of any notice to the petitioner in whose favour the allotment order has been passed. The grievance of the petitioner is that before passing of the order cancelling his allotment, an opportunity of hearing must have been given to the petitioner. Moreover, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no right to recall its own order, even if wrongly passed. It is for the Higher Court to either confirm the same or set it aside. 11. Shri Tripathi has relied upon a decision rendered in a case of Ravindra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Moradabad and others reported in 1996(1) ARC 332; in which it has been held that the allotment order cannot be cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing to the allottee. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioner, which was also confirmed by the revisional court, the same could not have been recalled or cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing to the allottee/petitioner. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned orders, I find that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has wrongly taken up the release application and allotment application together for disposal and deciding the same by passing a composite order. The R.C.E.O. has also taken into consideration the contents of the allotment application while deciding the release application which is impermissible under the law. The R.C.E.O. has also taken into consideration the contents of the allotment application while deciding the release application which is impermissible under the law. The question of consideration of allotment application arises only after the release application is rejected and even in the case of rejection of release application, the landlord has a right to be heard before making any order on the allotment application which has not been done in the present case. 13. Thus, the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 11.8.1996 and 3.6.1996 as well as the judgment and order dated 25.5.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Civil Revision No. 102 of 1995 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for consideration of release application afresh in accordance with law and in case the release application is rejected the R.C.E.O. shall proceed to consider the allotment application in accordance with the settled preposition of law and till then possession of the allottee, namely, Umawer Datt shall not be disturbed. 14. In the result both the writ petitions are partly allowed.