JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - Lal Behari and Sheo Kumar accused have been convicted u/s 7(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of rent and Eviction Act, 1947 read with para 23 A and B of the Local Orders inasmuch as Lal Behari accused is said to have not given any information of the vacation of house No. 189 situate in mohalla Atal Behari Nagar in the city of Unnao to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and let it out to Sheo Kumar accused without any proper allotment order, and that Sheo Kumar accused occupied the house without any allotment. 2. The prosecution case was that the said house fell vacant, Lal Behari accused was managing on behalf of the owner and he let it out to Sheo Kumar without giving any information though the house had fallen vacant. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. It appears that this house was once occupied by one Sheo Mangal, a Police Record Keeper. On his vacating the house, it was allotted to his successor. Sheo Mangal, when vacating the house, had given information to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but at the request of the owner, the house was allotted to him for keeping Government grains. Sheo Kumar was a friend of the accused Lal Behari and since a man was required to keep watch over the godown, he allowed him to remain in the outer verandah. About five months back his wife had died and there was difficulty in cooking food and as Sheo Kumar helped him in cooking food he allowed him to occupy a portion of the upper storey. After the termination of the rationing, one Laxmi Narain constable asked him to let out this house to him but the accused Lal Behari refused to give it as it was required for the trade purposes of the master. 4. No evidence on behalf of the prosecution was led as to when this house was vacated and who had been occupying it. The prosecution produced three witnesses. Sri Wasi Hyder Zaidi (P.W. 1) admitted in his cross examination that the house was not let out to any body in his presence and that he had no personal knowledge about the house being let out. The prosecution produced three witnesses. Sri Wasi Hyder Zaidi (P.W. 1) admitted in his cross examination that the house was not let out to any body in his presence and that he had no personal knowledge about the house being let out. Laxmi Narain (P.W. 2) and Sri Wasi Hyder Zaidi (P.W. 1) both admitted that Lal Behari was not the owner of the house and that he was only occupying it on behalf of his master and was only managing the affairs. Laxmi Narain further admitted that he had no knowledge whether any rent was being paid by Sheo Kumar or not. In his cross-examination he said, that he had heard that he paid Rs. 5 as rent but he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of it. Ganga Prasad (P.W. 3) stated that he did not know in whose house Sheo Kumar lived and he also did not know whether any person lives in the upper portion of the house of Lal Behari. This is the entire evidence on record. On this evidence the prosecution has entirely failed to prove that there was any vacation and that there was any occupation of any portion of the house without an allotment order. The learned Sessions Judge relied on a reply which was filed by Lal Behari from which the facts, as given above, were taken. He was of opinion that after the termination of the rationing the house should have been surrendered to the Rent Control and Eviction Office as it was no longer required for storing grain and, therefore, it had fallen vacant and the accused should be deemed to have committed an offence. 5. I do not agree with the view of the law taken by the learned Sessions Judge. When a house is allotted to a particular person, it is open to that person to carry on any kind of business or occupy that house so long as he fulfils his obligations of paying rent, in case he is a tenant. The view that as soon as the house was not required for storing grain, it should have been deemed to have been vacated, is erroneous. The house was allotted to the landlord and he could occupy it as long as he wanted. The view that as soon as the house was not required for storing grain, it should have been deemed to have been vacated, is erroneous. The house was allotted to the landlord and he could occupy it as long as he wanted. Whether he occupied it for storing Government grain or whether he kept his private grain or he allowed his manager to live in it, it cannot be said to have been vacated. The meaning of the phrase "accommodation falling vacant" was explained by a Bench of this Court in Sri Lachhman Das v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly 1953 A.W.R. (H.C.) 125 where it was observed: What is contemplated by 'accommodation falling vacant' u/s 7 in the case of the landlord himself in occupation is that the accommodation is not intended to be used by the owner for his own purposes, but is intended to be let out to a tenant, or if the occupier is a tenant that the tenant will cease to occupy it. 6. Thus so long as a landlord does not express an intention that in future he wants an accommodation to be let out, the accommodation cannot be said to have fallen vacant. 7. Moreover, in this case it was only a small portion of the upper storey which was given for occupation to Sheo Kumar and this disuse of a portion of the accommodation cannot be deemed to be vacating the accommodation. In Brij Kishore v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 156 a Bench of this Court held as follows: Therefore the disuse by a tenant of a portion of the accommodation let to him does not amount to the tenant's vacating that portion of the accommodation and does not therefore, give any right to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to allot such portion of the accommodation to another person. 8. Moreover, both Lal Behari and Sheo Kumar were occupying as servants Lal Behari was the servant of the landlord and Sheo Kumar will be deemed to be the servant of Lal Behari. He was given a shelter only for a period during which he Cooked food it did not give him any right or interest in the property itself and he had not become a tenant. He was given a shelter only for a period during which he Cooked food it did not give him any right or interest in the property itself and he had not become a tenant. It is a well recognised proposition of law that where a servant of the owner occupies property on his behalf, the occupation is in law that of the owner himself and so there is no lease. There is neither a right to exclusive possession nor an interest in the property in such a case. Where a servant's occupation or residence in a house belonging to his master is required for the purpose of service, such occupation is on the master's account and the servant will not be deemed to be a tenant. It was for the convenience of both the parties that Sheo Kumar remained in the house and in that event he could watch the godown as well as cook the food of Lal Behari. In the circumstances, I hold that neither Lal Behari nor Sheo Kumar were guilty of any offence u/s 7(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. 9. I accordingly allow the revision and set aside the conviction and sentences. The fines, if paid, shall be refunded.