JUDGMENT : B.D. Agarwala, J. The Petitioner in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the owner and land-lady of the premises in dispute known as 'Oak-Bush' situate at Mussoorie. He has challenged the order dated October 13, 1978 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Mussoorie, by which a portion of the aforesaid premises has been declared vacant under the Act and proceedings for allotment have been directed to be taken in that regard. She has also challenged certain consequential orders passed subsequently, as a result of the aforesaid order dated October 13, 1978. 2. The Petitioner is the daughter of late His Highness Maharaja Ripuda-man Singh of Nabha and is resident of 34, Alipur Road, Delhi. The two premises popularly known as 'Oak' and Oak Bush' situate at Mussoorie are owned by the Petitioner. The present petition related to the premises 'Oak Bush'. The Petitioner regularly stays in these premises at the time of visits to Mussoorie. A Chaukidar/care-taker has been kept by her to lookafter the maintenance of these premises. 3. Smt. Saroj Panwar filed an application for allotment of both the premises, namely, 'Oak' and Oak Bush'. The need alleged by her was of running a school and hostel for backward and poor students. A report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector, to which the Petitioner filed objections. Ultimately, an allotment order dated March 31, 1978 was made in favour of Smt. Saroj Panwar in respect of the premises 'Oak Bush' for use by her for residential purpose. This allotment order was passed upon the view taken that as per entries in the Conservancy register maintained by the Municipality S. Sri Bachan Singh and Dayal Singh were shown as being in occupation of some part of this premises, and consequently, in view of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act there was deemed vacancy and hence the premises were open to allotment. The case of the Petitioner that the house was in occupation and that her luggage and other effects were always there and that the property was never let out, was not accepted. 4. The Petitioner being aggrieved against the aforesaid allotment filed a revision u/s 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972)(hereinafter referred as the Act). 4. The Petitioner being aggrieved against the aforesaid allotment filed a revision u/s 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972)(hereinafter referred as the Act). This revision was heard by the learned District Judge, Dehradun, who by his judgment and order dated May 4, 1978 allowed the revision and set aside the order of allotment as well as the order declaring vacancy. He further remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a fresh decision keeping in view the observations made by him in his judgment. The learned District Judge in his judgment held and, in our view, rightly that a mere-mention of the names of Sri Bachan Singh and Dayal Singh in the Conservancy Register of the Municipality would not lead to the necessary conclusion that Sri Bachan Singh and Shri Dayal Singh actually occupied the premises and if so in what capacity and of which portion were they in occupation. The learned District Judge further recorded a finding that the allotment order had been passed without taking into consideration the relevant evidence and on the face of it, there was irregularity in the procedure adopted. Upon these findings, it was observed by him that what was necessary in the case to be inquired was as to which portion had been in possession of whom, and since when, and, in what capacity. Consequently, if any portion was found in possession of a tenant without allotment in his favour, the question of application of Section 14 of the Act which relates to regularisation of occupation of existing tenants will have to be considered. Further he observed that if it was found that the letting out was after July 1976, a deemed vacancy would occur u/s 12 of the Act of only that portion which was so let out Lastly, it was observed by him in clear terms that if a person had been found occupying any portion just as a care-taker there would be no vacancy, and that in case it was found that the premises had been let out to them, a question may also arise about the application of Sub-rule (9) of Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Act. 5. 5. Before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, when the matter came up, in pursuance to the remand by the learned District Judge, the parties filed further evidence in the light of the points requiring decision, in view of the judgment of the learned District Judge. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated October 13, 1978 declared vacancy of two rooms and one verandah of the premises 'Oak Bush one room and one verandah allegedly at one time being in occupation of one Sri Rai Singh Pundir and another room at one time being in the occupation of Sri Trilok Singh. This order further directed that the applications for allotment in respect of the accommodation so declared vacant be called for and considered. It was also observed in this order that the occupation of Sri Bachan Singh and Sri Dayal Singh was before July 5, 1976 and hence they would be deemed to be lawful tenants in respect of the accommodation in their occupation. Subsequent to the passing of this order, an application was filed on behalf of the Petitioner that without prejudice to her right to challenge the aforesaid order dated October 13, 1978, the proceedings be held in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (9) of Rule 10 and since the Petitioner does not want to let out the building to any one, the proceedings for allotment be dropped and no allotment order be passed. This application was, however, rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Subsequently, another order dated November 10, 1978 was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directing Naib Tahsildar to make spot inspection and to report as to which of the rooms of the premises were separately occupied by Rai Singh Pundir and Trilok Singh. 6. Before further proceedings could take place, the Petitioner filed the present petition in this Court and further proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were stayed. 7. It must be mentioned that no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case to controvert the averments made by the Petitioner in the petition. We hence proceed to consider the submissions made by the Petitioner in the background of the facts stated in petition. 8. 7. It must be mentioned that no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case to controvert the averments made by the Petitioner in the petition. We hence proceed to consider the submissions made by the Petitioner in the background of the facts stated in petition. 8. Sri A.K. Yog, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has mainly submitted that the premises in question were in the occupation of the Petitioner who is owner and landlady of the premises, and had been retained by her for purposes of her stay and for the stay of her family members during visit to Mussoorie. A care taker had to be kept by her, particularly to lookafter and maintain the building during her and her family members absence, and, that the occupation of the care taker was not in any right of his own but only on her behalf for the purposes aforesaid. It has further been contended that the Petitioner has not allowed any one to occupy any part of the premises and permission of the Chaukidar, if any, would not be material unless it was further proved that there was any element of consent on her part to the occupation of such person. In other words, what has been submitted is that a deemed vacancy could only arise as a result of application of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act if it is proved that either the landlord or a tenant has allowed any person who is not a member of his family to occupy any building. The learned Counsel has laid much stress on the word 'allowed' occurring in this clause. Since, according to the learned Counsel, the Rent Control and Eviction officer has not recorded any finding to the effect that the Petitioner had consented to or in other words had allowed any person to occupy the premises in question in the sense the word 'allowed' has been used in this clause, no deemed vacancy could be legally held to have arisen in the instant case; and, consequently, any proceedings for allotment was wholly without jurisdiction. Further contention of the learned Counsel is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his order dated October 13, 1978 has on wholly irrelevant considerations, taken the view that Tirlok Singh, Bachan Singh and Shri Dayal Singh could not be treated as care-takers. 9. Further contention of the learned Counsel is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his order dated October 13, 1978 has on wholly irrelevant considerations, taken the view that Tirlok Singh, Bachan Singh and Shri Dayal Singh could not be treated as care-takers. 9. We find merit in both these contentions raised by the learned Counsel. The instant case appears to be one of those clauses of cases where the landlord bonafide retains for his own occupation the building at more than one place. It is a matter of common knowledge that for genuine reasons and bonafide purposes it some times necessitates a landlord bonafide and for genuine purpose to retain the accommodations at more than one place for his own use and occupation. Many accommodations situate at hill stations are not occupied all round the year. They are occupied only during summer months when people like to spend their days away from the scorching heat in the plains. Similar appears to be the present case. The Petitioner though she lives with her family members in Delhi, retains the premises; namely 'Oak' and 'Oak Bush' for her use and occupation during visits made by her and her family members to Mussoorie. 10. The clear case of the Petitioner throughout was that no part of the premises was ever let out to any person. Affidavits were filed by her averring this fact. This averment stood uncontroverted. Even apart from this, there was no other evidence to show that there was any act of the Petitioner to lead to the inference of a tenancy being in favour of any one. Before this Court also, it has been clearly stated in the petition that no portion of the premises were let out with the consent or knowledge of the Petitioner or that any rent was ever received by her from any one. It has further been categorically stated that there was no specific averment or positive assertion made before the authorities to controvert this position. We are of the opinion that no case of any letting out by the Petitioner in favour of any one of any portion of the premises has been established. Further, it has also not been proved that the Petitioner consented to the occupation of any part of the premises by any one. We are of the opinion that no case of any letting out by the Petitioner in favour of any one of any portion of the premises has been established. Further, it has also not been proved that the Petitioner consented to the occupation of any part of the premises by any one. Though, it has not been proved that persons were permitted to occupy with the permission of the Chaukidar, but, even assuming to be so, in law, the permission of the Chaukidar cannot endure to the benefit of any person occupying the premises in the absence of an express or implied consent having been proved on the part of the landlord. In this case, it has not so been proved. In our opinion, Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act can only result in a deemed vacancy if the landlord has consented to the occupation of any person, not a member of his family. In this view of the matter, on the facts of the present case, we are unable to hold that any deemed vacancy did occur in relation to the permises in question. 11. In his order dated October 13, 1978, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, while dealing with the cases of occupation of part of the premises by Sri Trilok Singh and Sri Rai Singh Pundir, has, after finding that Sri Trilok Singh left the accommodation in 1975 and Sri Rai Singh Pundir left the accommodation on August 11, 1976, further observed, that, their occupation of part of che premises as evidence by entries in the Conservancy Tax Register for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, would be assumed to be occupation with the consent and knowledge of the Petitioner. On this finding he has taken a view that a deemed vacancy u/s 12(1)(b) of the Act occurred. This conclusion of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, in our view, is manifestly illegal. From entries made in Conservancy Tax Registers, it cannot be evident that various persons whose names were recorded were occupying as tenants with the consent of the landlord. Further, in the absence of any evidence led and proved no assumption could have been made that the occupation of these two persons was with the consent and in the knowledge of the Petitioner. Further, in the absence of any evidence led and proved no assumption could have been made that the occupation of these two persons was with the consent and in the knowledge of the Petitioner. Apart from this, it is note-worthy that Sri Rai Singh Pundir in his affidavit filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer himself did not say that the Petitioner had permitted him to occupy the accommodation. His case was that possession was given to him by the Chaukidar of the Kothi. No case of consent or knowledge on the part of the Petitioner to the occupation by Sri Rai Singh Pundir was even alleged. 12. Sri Trilok Singh in his affidavit filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer categorically stated that he was living only as a caretaker and he was looking after the electricity of the property. He further categorically stated that he never paid any rent in any form whatsoever to the Petitioner. Moreover, Mahraj Kumari Bimla Devi filed her own affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In clear terms she denied that Sri Rai Singh Pundir ever lived in this property and in case he was found to have been residing there it must be with the connivance of the Chaukidar and she never permitted Chaukidar to keep any one in the premises. She further stated that she never allowed Sri Pundir to occupy any portion in the premises nor did Sri Pundir ever pay any rent to her. In regard to Sri Trilok Singh, it was stated by her that he was living there as her caretaker in a room of the servant's quarter only and that also because he was electrician and was looking after the electric in the premises. This affidavit of the Petitioner remains uncontroverted. In these state of facts and there being no evidence to prove consent or knowledge by the Petitioner to the occupation of Sri Trilok Singh and Sri Rai Singh Pundir, we cannot but hold that the finding is based on no evidence and hence is perverse. 13. The case of the Petitioner that Sri Trilok Singh lived in one room in the servant's quarters for some time only as a caretaker was also, in our view, wrongly rejected without any legal basis. 13. The case of the Petitioner that Sri Trilok Singh lived in one room in the servant's quarters for some time only as a caretaker was also, in our view, wrongly rejected without any legal basis. The only basis on which this case of caretaker has been rejected is that Sri Trilok Singh was an employee in the Electricity Department of the Municipality and as such he could not be a caretaker. This, to our mind, is no reason. A caretaker need not be a whole time employee of the person on whose behalf he looks after and takes care of the premises. Why a person employed elsewhere cannot also act as a caretaker, we are unable to understand. 14. So far as Sri Bachan Singh is concerned, the Petitioner in her affidavit clearly stated that he was caretaker of the property and was residing in that capacity only. Shi Bachan Singh also filed an affidavit to that effect. There was nothing before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to contradict these averments. What was stated was that Sri Bachan Singh was a teacher in the Wood Stock School Mussoorie, and, it was for this reason only that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer refused to accept the case of the Petitioner that Sri Bachan Singh was a caretaker. Sri Sukhdev Singh was the son-in-law of Sri Bachan Singh and had no independent right or existence apart from Sri Bachan Singh and was merely found living with Sri Bachan Singh. For similar reasons, as mentioned above, we are unable to subscribe to this view of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 15. In regard to Sri Dayal Singh also the Petitioner in her affidavit denied Dayal Singh's occupation at any time, of any portion of the premises. Sri Rai Singh Pundir however in his affidavit stated that Sri Dayal Singh was residing there. His name was found entered in the Conservancy Tax Register. No case of any express or implied consent on the part of the Petitioner to his occupation was alleged or proved. Even the case of his being care-taker was negatived by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground of his being employed in the Cantonment Board Mussoorie. This, as already found by us above, can form no basis. 16. Even the case of his being care-taker was negatived by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground of his being employed in the Cantonment Board Mussoorie. This, as already found by us above, can form no basis. 16. The possession of a care taker of a building or any part thereof cannot mean his occupation of the building. Clause (b) of Sub-clause (1) of Section 12 of the Act is not attracted to such a case. A similar view has been taken by two learned Single Judges of this Court in Smt. Durga Devi Vs. The District and Sessions Judge and Others, (1976) AWC 661 and Dr. S.N. Ghosh Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Others, (1975) AWC 568. 17. On the view that we have taken, it must be held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer manifestly erred in regularising the occupation of Sri Bachan Singh and Sri Dayal Singh purportedly in view of Section 14 of the Act. Neither Sri Bachan Singh nor Sri Dayal Singh were tenants in occupation of any part of the building with the consent of the Petitioner either before or after July 5, 1976. Section 14 of the Act had no application to them and they could not be deemed to be authorised tenants of the premises. 18. Since, we have already held that there was no deemed vacancy of any part of the premises in question, no part of the premises was open to allotment and any proceedings undertaken for allotment of any part of the premises are hence without jurisdiction and without any authority of law. On this view, the order dated October 27, 1978 disposing of the application of the Petitioner to her claim under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 10, also fails. 19. This writ petition, hence, succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated October 13, 1978 and October 27, 1978 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie and all orders passed or proceedings taken in consequence thereto are quashed. In the circumstances the Petitioner will bear her own costs of this petition.