J.C.GUPTA, J. - (1.) HEARD petitioner's Counsel. Sri Rajesh Tandon appears for caveator respondent No. 3.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25 -8 -1998jpassed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer 1st, Allahabad whereby the accommodation in question has been declared vacant. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under the deeming provision of Section 12(3) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has treated the accom ­modation in question as vacant. Section 12(3) of the Act runs as follows: In the case of a residential building, if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets va ­cated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy: Provided that if the tenant or any member of his family had built any such residential build ­ing before the date of commencement of this Act, then such tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy upon the expiration of a period of one year from the said date.'
(3.) A perusal of the above provision would indicate that by a legal fiction the tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy if he or any member pi his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate. By virtue of Sub -section (1) of Section 12, such a building would be deemed to be vacant.;