SHISHIR Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming herself to the the tenant of the accommodation against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring a vacancy under Section 12 (3) of Act XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the appellate authority. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner who is an old lady, is living in the said accommodation from about 50 years. The contesting respondents initiated a proceeding against the petitioner under Section 133 Cr. P. C. which was rejected. Subsequently,again the same proceeding was initiated and that was also rejected. The petitioner in the year 1999 was out for some time from the premises in dispute, then taking advantage. the respondent-landlord has damaged the roof of the said accommodation. A civil suit was filed by the respondents restraining the petitioner to raise any construction. Further a a suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was also dismissed in the year 2001. Then in the year 2006 a notice under Rule 8 (2) of the Act was received by the petitioner and on that basis a report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector. A proceeding on that basis was initiated that as the petitoner's mother was having another house in front of the house in dispute bearing no. 104/19 and after the death of the mother, she is living there, as such, the accommodation in dispute may be treated to be vacant under Section 12 (3) of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the claim of the parties has declared the vacancy-vide its order dated 15. 5. 2008. The revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed-vide its order dated 20. 9. 2008. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid orders has approached this Court by means of the present writ petiton. As the respondents have been represented by Sri Vishnu Behari Tiwari Advocate and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally. An amendment application has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that address mentioned in the body of the writ petition and affidavit has wrongly been mentioned as House no. 104/19 and it should be amended as House no. 104/42. An objection has been taken by the respondents that this application for amendment is not maintainable as it is not bona fide. If there is some typing error or some bona fide mistake, then that can be amended under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and such type of mistake is not permissible by seeking amendment as admittedly the petitioner has disclosed in the affidavit also the address of the house which admittedly belongs to her mother. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Manish Tandon submitted that the mistake in the body of the writ petition and the affidavit has not been done deliberately but it has been typed due to mistake. Further argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the perusal of the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer it clearly appears that he has ignored the report submitted by the Rent Control Inspector admittedly who has stated in his report that the petitioner is in possession of the house in dispute. Further it has been submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of house No. 104/19. One of the sisters and her family is living in the said accommodation. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner that the premises in dispute will be treated to be deemed vacant, is not correct. Further the revisional court has also committed an error while recording a finding that the petitioner cannot be heard as she has been treated to be unauthorised occupant. On the other hand Sri Tiwari learned counsel for the respondents has submitted and brought to the notice of this Court Section 12 (3) of the Act and in support of the aforesaid provision, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of residential building if the tenant or any member of the family builds or acquire in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building in his tenancy. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that admittedly no tenant is occupying another accommodation belonging to the mother of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said accommodation is being occupied by a tenant. In that case situation would have been different but in the present case admittedly the petitioner is having one-third share in the house of her mother and can easily shift to that place. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the record there is no dispute to this effect that the petitioner is having one-third share in the house of 104/19. It is also clear from the record that it is being occupied by one of the sisters of the petitioner, therefore in view of the provisions of the Act, the courts below were justified in declaring the vacancy. But as regards the report submitted by the Rent Control Officer that has wrongly been considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer because the Rent Control Inspector has nowhere stated that the petitioner is not in possession of the accommodation. But before going to the issue on merits, the Court has suggested the parties that if some compensation is given to the petitioner in terms of damages, then in that circumstances whether she is ready to vacate the said accommodation. The respondent-landlord is present and an offer has been made that he will pay Rs. 25,000/- as damages on the condition that petitioner will hand over peaceful possession to the respondent-landlord immediately within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the aforesaid amount. In view of the aforesaid fact the writ petition is disposed of finally with a condition that the respondent- landlord will pay Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner within a period of two weeks and a receipt to that effect be issued by the petitioner to the land lord and if that amount is paid within 24 hours, the petitioner will peacefully vacate the premises and handover the same to the landlord. As submitted by Sri Manish Tandon that though sister of the petitioner is living in House No. 104/19 but they will not permit the petitioner to live in the said accommodation and will not permit her to take possession of the said accommodation in her own share. In that circumstances the Superintendent of Police Kanpur Nagar is directed to see that the petitioner is put to possession of House no. 104/19, Chaparasi Area, Sishamau, P. S. Bajaria district Kanpur Nagar without any obstruction of any party in her own one-third share within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order is passed as to costs. .;