The legal principle established is that under Section 12(3) of the Act, a deemed vacancy arises when a tenant acquires another residential building in a vacant state, regardless of subsequent changes or the sufficiency of the acquired accommodation.

( 1 ) IN this petition, the dispute relates to Premises No. 119/216e (new No. 119/468) Om Nagar, darshanpurwa, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted house") of which respondent No. 1 Ram Narain Shukla is the owner-landlord. The petitioner-Hirdal Narain Misra, it is an indubitable fact, has been the tenant of a portion of ground floor of the said house for the last more than four decades. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner-tenant was allotted on lease House No. 14-L/2 Daboli, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter called as "daboli House") by the kanpur Development Authority. The landlord moved an application on 23. 4. 1999 before the rent Control and Eviction Officer/additional City Magistrate-VI Kanpur Nagar for releasing the tenanted accommodation as a "deemed vacancy" has arisen on account of acquisition of Daboli house within the municipal limits of Kanpur nagar in a vacant state by the tenant-petitioner. After obtaining the report of the Rent Control Inspector dated 14. 6. 1999, a vacancy in respect of the tenanted accommodation was declared by order dated 29. 5. 2000, a copy of which is annexure-5 to the petition. The application of landlord for release was fixed for hearing on 8. 6. 2000. On that date the petitioner moved an application for recalling the order of vacancy dated 29. 5. 2000, on which, it is alleged, notice was directed to be issued to the landlord for 4. 7. 2000. An order of release was passed in favour of the land-lord-rcspondent No. 1 on 8. 6. 2000 itself and Form-C was issued for eviction of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner moved an application dated 12. 6. 2000 to recall the order of vacancy and release but the application was not entertained.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition was filed in Summer Vacations and was taken up on 22. 6. 2000. Sri A. N. Sinha appeared on behalf of the landlord. Parties were directed to exchange counter and rejoinder-affidavits. It was further directed that the petitioner would not be dis-possessed till 31st august, 2000. This order has been extended from time to time.

( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri Rakesh Bahadur learned counsel for the tenant petitioner as well as S/sri A. N. Sinha and Chhotey Lal Kureel appearing on behalf of landlord at considerable length.

( 5 ) THE moot point for consideration and determination in the present writ petition is whether on account of acquisition of Daboli House by the petitioner, a deemed vacancy under Section 12 (3)of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has arisen in view of the assertions made by the parties. The conditions for the applicability of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act dealing with the deemed vacancy are (i) There is a residential building let out to the tenant; (ii) The tenant or any member of his family (a) builds. (b) otherwise acquires in a vacant state ; or (c) gets vacated a building which is (i) residential, and (ii) is situated in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situated.

( 6 ) IT is undisputed fact that the Kanpur Development Authority allotted Daboli House on lease in favour of the petitioner and his name came to be recorded in the Municipal Assessment register for the years 1987-92 as owner of the said house with effect from 1st October, 1990. The case of the petitioner is that though the said house was allotted in his favour in the year 1982, possession was not delivered to him thereon. It is further averred that a Suit No. 1635 of 1994 was filed in respect of the said house by one R. N. Dwivedi who claimed himself to be in possession of the said house and later on handed over the possession to one Shiv Singh Rathore. The petitioner further claimed that on account of compelling circumstances due to paucity of funds, the petitioner sold the house in question in t