ORDER A.N. Varma, J. -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an order dated 21-9-1978, passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Rampur dismissing a Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. These are the relevant facts. The petitioner was a tenant in occupation of Flat No. 13, of the District Co-operative Development Federation Limited, Rampur. Flat No. 13 aforesaid belongs to respondent No. 4. The petitioner has been in its occupation since the year 1956. It appears that some individuals made an application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that it was vacant. The petitioner intervened in the proceedings and asserted that the accommodation was neither 'Vacant nor could it be deemed to be 'Vacant under the aforesaid U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 3. One of the questions which arose for determination before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer was whether a 'deemed vacancy had occurred in consequence of the petitioners son Sri Rakesh Seth having acquired a separate residential building. It appears that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the aforesaid Act No. XIII of 1972, were sought to be applied against the petitioner on that ground. 4. The petitioner contested and asserted that that provision could have no application as the petitioners son was residing separately and was neither residing with the petitioner, nor was he dependent on him. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer overruled the petitioners objection and has held that a vacancy had occurred in consequence of the petitioners son having acquired another residential accommodation. 5. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed a Revision which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 21-9-1978. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned District Judge has fallen into a manifest error of law in holding that the accommodation in dispute 'shall be deemed to have become "vacant" by virtue of the petitioners son having acquired another accommodation in the same city. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned District Judge has fallen into a manifest error of law in holding that the accommodation in dispute 'shall be deemed to have become "vacant" by virtue of the petitioners son having acquired another accommodation in the same city. Learned counsel contended that the learned District Judge has obviously omitted to consider the petitioners objection that Rakesh Seth was neither normally residing with the petitioner, nor was he dependent on him. It was urged that the learned District Judge has obviously omitted to consider also the provisions of clause (b) of Explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Sub-clause (b) of that Explanation reads as follows:- "(b) The expression 'any member of family in relation to tenant, shall not include a person who has neither been normally residing with nor is wholly dependent on such tenant". The provisions of the aforesaid Explanation are clear and unambiguous, The accommodation in dispute could not be deemed "vacant" without considering the petitioners objection that Rakesh Seth was neither normally residing with the petitioner, nor was he wholly dependent on him. The learned District Judge has applied sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act without considering the said Explanation. 7. In view of what has been stated, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned District Judge dated 21-9-1978, is quashed. The case is remanded to respondent No. 1 for disposing of the petitioners revision according to law having regard to the observations made by this Court in this Judgment. There will be no order as to costs. The petitioner will not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute until disposal of his Revision.