ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings under S. 16 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the accommodation in favour of the respondent no. 3 by his order dated 20th Nov., 1981, a true copy of which is Annexure 8 to the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision under S. 18 of the said Act but the same was dismissed by the revisional court by its order dated 20th May, 1982, a true copy of which is Annexure 9 to the petition. A certified copy of the said revisional order is also on the record. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri V. K. Burman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel raised a number of contentions. It was contended that there was no vacancy of the accommodation in question and the authorities below committed an error in holding that such a vacancy existed as entitled the Rent Control & Eviction Officer to make the allotment under S. 16 of the Act. It seems that the accommodation on certain occasions had been occupied by one Sri Ram Sagar Yadav, a Sub Inspector of police and thereafter, by one Gaya Prasad Misra. It was contended by the petitioner before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer that the said persons were his mere licensees and not tenants. The learned counsel in this connection placed reliance on AIR 1978 All 82 , S. D. Saigal v. Smt. Vidya Vijan, where M. P. Saxena, J. emphasised that the contract of tenancy has its ingredients and before one comes to the conclusion that such a contract exists, these ingredients have to be proved. I should like to observe that the said reported case is clearly distinguishable from the situation which existed in the present case. The learned Judge made those observations where a person was contesting that he was a tenant and not a licensee and the landlord's contention was that such a person was a mere licensee and not a tenant. In a situation of this kind, the said observations, speaking with respect, are apposite. The learned Judge made those observations where a person was contesting that he was a tenant and not a licensee and the landlord's contention was that such a person was a mere licensee and not a tenant. In a situation of this kind, the said observations, speaking with respect, are apposite. It was possible for the person, who was claiming to be a tenant, to have led necessary evidence to substantiate his contention. In the instant case, the position is wholly different. A third person, namely the respondent No. 3, alleged that the landlord had been letting out the accommodation in dispute and, therefore, there was vacancy in law. In a situation of this kind, obviously such third person cannot be expected to be in possession of the evidence which will conclusively establish the tenancy between the landlord and the alleged tenant. In a situation of this kind, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer can act only on the basis of the circumstances of the case and reasonable inferences have to be drawn from the conduct of the parties and taking into consideration the other relevant aspects of the matter. It should be seen that neither the police Sub-Inspector nor the other person namely Misra was related to the landlord. It was emphasised, in the order of the authorities below that no affidavit of the said Sub-Inspector of police was brought on record by the landlord to show that he was not a tenant but merely a licensee. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer was entitled to take into consideration the said aspect of the matter. It is not suggested that if such an affidavit had been filed that would have been conclusive on the controversy because, it must be borne in mind, that the provisions of the Rent Control Act making it obligatory that before tenancy is created, there should be an allotment order passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, which cannot be allowed to be defeated by a bilateral transaction between the landlord and the tenant. The authorities are bound to interpret the circumstances keeping into view that the Rent Control Legislation provides for a regulated letting and the freedom of contract which formerly existed under the general law, stands circumscribed. The authorities below have pointed out that the landlord stood discredited in his version on more than one ground. The authorities are bound to interpret the circumstances keeping into view that the Rent Control Legislation provides for a regulated letting and the freedom of contract which formerly existed under the general law, stands circumscribed. The authorities below have pointed out that the landlord stood discredited in his version on more than one ground. It is not necessary to advert to the various aspects on which it has been found that his version stood belied and it has further been emphasised that he was changing his version from time to time. 4. The learned counsel next contended that the Rent Inspector's report dated 22-1-1981 (Annexure 1 to the petition) had not been properly considered by the authorities below. I cannot agree with this contention. The report forms part of the record and has been referred to. It should be seen that the report is a mere preliminary investigation of facts and it is in a way the starting point, but basically the matter has to be decided on the basis of the affidavits on record and other considerations. The report merely incorporated the version of the landlord as was given out to the Inspector. It also stated that certain articles were found stored in the accommodation in question which were alleged to belong to some charitable institution of which the petitioner was said to be the Secretary. I do not think that the impugned orders can be assailed on the ground of non-consideration of the Inspector's report particularly within the narrow ambit of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The learned counsel next contended that reading the various provisions of the Act such as Sections 12 and 14, as a matter of law, it has to be held that vacancy which would give jurisdiction of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer must be of recent origin. 5. The learned counsel next contended that reading the various provisions of the Act such as Sections 12 and 14, as a matter of law, it has to be held that vacancy which would give jurisdiction of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer must be of recent origin. He took an example that if a tenancy was created by a landlord about six years back and the tenant shortly left the accommodation thereafter, after a passage of long duration, it would not be open to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to proceed on the basis that there was any existing vacancy and to make allotment would not like to express any opinion on this legal question in the present writ petition because the factual foundations for examining the said controversy have not been laid in the proceedings before the authorities below. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer emphasised that it was not stated by the petitioner as to the duration of period during which the Sub-Inspector of Police remained in the accommodation in dispute. In a situation of this kind, unless the necessary facts were placed before the authorities below which could have shown the period during which the aforesaid two persons remained in occupation, it will not be possible to decide the questions raised by the counsel. Accordingly, this petition stands concluded by pure finding of facts and is fit to be dismissed and dismiss the petition in limine. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in dispute and hand over its peaceful possession to the allottee, respondent No. 3 grant three months' time to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in dispute and to hand over its peaceful possession to the respondent No. 3 namely the allottee.