Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

1. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Shamim Ahmad, Advocate, for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. It is not in dispute that petitioner's father had acquired a residential accommodation at 19/67, Ram Nagar Bazar, Patkapur, Kanpur. The proceedings for declaring vacancy, pursuant whereto the impugned order dated 14.6.2002 has been passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO"), were initiated on an application filed by Sri Shafeeq Ahmad, respondent no. 3, who sought allotment of the said accommodation by Release Application dated 16.4.2001. Even if contention of petitioner is accepted that residential accommodation allegedly acquired by petitioner's father in the name of his wife i.e. petitioner's mother was prior to enforcement of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), that would make no difference since the Proviso pertaining to "deemed vacancy" as contained in Section 12 (3) Proviso of Act, 1972 is clearly attracted in such a case as it reads as under:

"Provided that if the tenant or any member of his f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document