JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. The order of allotment passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Shahjahanpur is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that this order is revisable under Section 18 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and no good ground could be argued before this Court so as not to relegate the petitioner to avail aforesaid statutory remedy. 3. It is also evident that earlier he filed Writ Petition No. 11619 of 1998 without availing statutory alternative remedy and that writ petition he got dismissed as withdrawn on 19.02.2008 with liberty to challenge the orders passed by authorities by filing separate petition. This order, however, by itself would not mitigate the fact either way that in earlier petition as well as in present one, in both the matters petitioner had statutory alternative remedy of filing revision before District Judge but he has failed to avail the said remedy. 4. Further, the grievance of petitioner is that despite allotment order made in favour of respondent no. 3 and possession taken by him forcibly, petitioner has not been paid any rent. 5. So far as this aspect is concerned, the remedy lies before Rent Control Authorities under act, 1972 and in my view for the first time this dispute cannot be raised directly in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.