Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is landlord and owner of the premises in dispute. The vacancy was declared in proceedings under Chapter III of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (The Act). Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for the release of the premises and Sri Shiv Raj Jiwan (the contesting respondent) filed an application for allotment on 2.2.1984. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh by its order dated 5.6.84 allowed the release application. The contesting respondent filed a revision which was allowed by the Revisional Court, on 4.8.1984. Hence the present writ petition. The revisional Court has allowed the revision of the contesting respondent on the ground that the provisions of Rule 17 of the Act have not been applied with. The revisional Court did not consider the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner that the contesting respondent is a prospective allottee. No revision was maintainable at his instance. Sri N.K. Srivastava, counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice a full bench decision of the Court: - - Talib Hassan v. Ist A.D.J. Nainital : 1986 (12) ALR 113 (F.B.), in which it has been held that the prospective allottee has no say in the matter. In view of the Full Bench decision, of this Court, the order of the revisional Court dated 4.8.84 is illegal and it is hereby set aside. Neither the revision was maintainable at the instant perspective nor Rule 17 has application. While considering the release application under Section 16.;