JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. -- Heard. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 9.9.2016 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge EC Act, Lucknow, whereby the Revisional Court has rejected the Civil Revision No. 9 of 2014 preferred against the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Addl. City Magistrate/Rent Control & Eviction Authority, Lucknow, 3. It appears from the record that opposite party no.4-Zubair Ali had filed an application on 25.10.2013 before the City Magistrate, Lucknow for allotment of house. For the same house, the petitioner has also filed an application on 4.7.2014. Apart from the petitioner and opposite party no.4, opposite party no.3 also filed an application on 24.9.2014 for the same property. The City Magistrate/Rent Control & Eviction Authority after being subjectively satisfied passed the order dated 10.11.2014 releasing the house in question in favour of opposite party no.4. 4. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid order dated 10.11.2014, the petitioner filed a Revision, as aforesaid. The Revisional Court dismissed the said revision preferred by the petitioner by the impugned judgment on the ground that the owner of the house, namely, Sri Akhil Chaturvedi, who is Chartered Accountant by profession, is in need of the premises for his personal use and the City Magistrate rightly passed the order in his favour. The petitioner and oppsoite party no.4-Zubair Ali Ali are the applicants and can be termed as the prospective allottee. 5. In the case of Talib Hasan v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, 1986 ID ARC 1, a Full Bench of this Court has laid down that the prospective allottee has got no right to be heard in the proceedings for release and the matter is entirely between the R.C. and E.O. and the landlord. It was held : "The prospective allottee has also no right or interest in the property or claim against the landlord so as to be entitled to any hearing in the disposal of the release application on general principles or doctrine of audi alteram partem. The principle of audi alteram partem presupposes existence of some right or interest in the subject matter of the lis. It has already been said that the prospective allottee has no right or claim against the landlord nor any interest in the accommodation in dispute. The principle of audi alteram partem presupposes existence of some right or interest in the subject matter of the lis. It has already been said that the prospective allottee has no right or claim against the landlord nor any interest in the accommodation in dispute. He has, therefore, no right to be heard in opposition to an application for release filed by the landlord even on the above principle." 6. In this connection, a reference may be made to the Supreme Court decision of Swaroop Narain Srivastava Vs. IVth Additional District Judge and others : JT 1994 (15) SC 221, wherein it was held that it is no where provided in the Act or the Rules that an application for allotment of a vacant building can be considered in preference to the application made for release of the vacant building by the landlord 7. In Ram Narayan Sharma Vs. Shakuntala Gaur: 2002 (2) ARC 1 (S. C.), their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down as follows (paragraph 12 of the said ARC) : "12. In the writ petition the High Court found the appellant was rightly treated as a prospective allottee and the need of the landlady having been found to be bona fide by the revisional court, it committed no error in releasing the accommodation in her favour. So far the legal position is concerned, we feel that there is hardly any doubt that a prospective allottee shall have no right to oppose an application for release moved by the landlord. The need of the landlord is bona fide or not is a matter for satisfaction of the District Magistrate and on being so satisfied, an order of release can be passed. The release application is to be disposed of first before passing an order on the application for allotment." 8. In view of the legal position as enumerated herein above and referred in the impugned judgment dated 9.9.29016, no good ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the impugned orders are affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed.