JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – List revised. None appears to press the present writ petition. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of allotment dated 29.12.2007 and the order dated 18.1.2008 whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises in view of the allotment order and further the order dated 28.1.2009 passed in revision filed by him. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the shop in question was declared vacant by order dated 27.6.2005, thereafter it was released in favour of the landlord owner Sri Dev Ashish Chakrawarti vide order dated 6th July, 2005. After release Rent Revision No. 58 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner which was decided on 7.11.2006. The revision was partly allowed and the order of release dated 6.7.2005 was set aside whereas the order of vacancy dated 27.6.2005 was affirmed. Thereafter, the allotment application filed by one Sri Praveen Kumar Singh was considered and the shop in question was allotted vide order dated 29.12.2007. Pursuant to the order dated 29.12.2007, an order dated 18.1.2008 was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer asking the petitioner to vacate the shop in question. 4. Challenging the allotment order dated 29.12.2007, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed on 28.1.2009 on the ground that the vacancy order has become final in the rent revision filed by the petitioner which has been decided on 7.11.2006. 5. The allotment order in the name of Sri Praveen Kumar Singh has been passed with the consent of the landlord. There is no infirmity in the order of the allotment and the petitioner being the unauthorised occupant has no right to contest the allotment proceedings. 6. Admittedly there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the order of declaration of vacancy dated 27.6.2005 has become final with the dismissal of rent revision filed by the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and hence dismissed. Petition dismissed.