ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, an allottee of the accommodation in dispute, aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority dated 22nd October 2005 whereby the revisional authority allowed the revision filed by the landlord against the order rejecting the release application filed by the landlord and directing release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord consequent to vacancy declared in the accommodation in question. This release application has been rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by its order dated 18th August 2005 whereby direction was given to proceed with the allotment of the accommodation in accordance with law. The land lord-respondent aggrieved by this order dated 18th August, 2005 filed a revision i.e., Rent Revision No. 41 of 2005 before the revisional authority. During the pendency of revision it appears that the accommodation in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner and as per assertions made by the petitioner, the petitioner occupied the accommodation in question. The revision against the order dated 18th August 2005 was ultimately allowed by the revisional authority by its order dated 22nd October, 2005 whereby the accommodation in question was directed to be released in favour of the landlord.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the revision, therefore, any order that has been passed by the revisional authority is not binding on him. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was not a party to the revision the order allowing the revision and directing the release of the accommodation has been passed without hearing the petitioner is in contravention of the principles of natural justice.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Satyawati and Ors. v. Prescribed Authority, Etawah and Ors. , wherein this Court has held that an order directing to proceed ex parte is prejudicial to petitioner's interest, therefore, the order was set aside by this Court. In my opinion the aforesaid ratio laid down by this Court in the above decision do not apply in the present case. In the present case, the allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioner which is a consequential order to the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
5. Admittedly a revision lies against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejecting release application and a revision, as already stated, has been filed by the landlord which has been allowed by the impugned order. In Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Talib Hasan and Anr. v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and Ors. 1986 (1) ARC 1, this Court has held that the matter of release is between landlord and tenant and no other person has a right to be heard. This decision has been upheld by the Apex Court. In view of the ratio of Talib Hussain (supra) petitioner's contentions, that the order was ex parte and that the petitioner was not a party to the revision and that he was not heard and ultimately since the petitioner is going to be affected by the order of release, cannot be accepted. The petitioner is in occupation by virtue of a consequential order of allotment which has been passed after the release application of the landlord was rejected. Thus, in my opinion once the order rejecting the lease application is set aside the consequential order of allotment automatically goes and no further right flows in favour of the petitioner.
6. In view of what has been stated above this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.