ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - These two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they are both directed against a common judgment given by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, disposing of three revisions, one filed by the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6542 of 1981 and the other two filed by the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 9630 of 1981. By the impugned order the learned 1st Additional District Judge has, on the one hand, negatived the contention of the petitioners Mrs. Surjeet R. Patel and Dr. R. S. Patel that the disputed premises were neither in fact nor in law vacant and hence could not be allotted to Asha Ram, respondent no. 3 in Writ Petition No. 6542 of 1981, on the other, upheld the said allotment order rejecting the claim of M. A. Khan (Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 9630 of 1981 and the landlord of the disputed premises) for the release of the accommodation under S. 16 (1) (b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972). 2. This is the second time that this case has come to this Court. On the earlier occasion by an order dated 17-9-1979 the case had been remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Nainital for being disposed of afresh after making an appropriate enquiry into the question whether the disputed premises are vacant in fact or are liable to be deemed vacant and thereafter decide the case in accordance with law. After the proceedings were resumed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held by an order dated 16-7-1980 that the disputed premises were liable to be deemed vacant under S. 12 (1) (b) of the aforesaid Act and by a subsequent order dated 23-9-1980 allotted the accommodation to Asha Ram after rejecting the application of the landlord for the release of the accommodation. Aggrieved by these orders three revisions were filed, one by Mrs. Patel aforesaid, the wife of Dr. Aggrieved by these orders three revisions were filed, one by Mrs. Patel aforesaid, the wife of Dr. R. S. Patel, who was undisputedly the tenant of the accommodation at the relevant time i.e. April, 1976 against the order declaring vacancy and the other two by the landlord M. A. Khan against the allotment in favour of Asha Ram and rejection of his application for the release of his application. All these revisions having been dismissed the aforesaid parties have . filed these two petitions. 3. The relevant facts are that Dr. R. S. Patel was admittedly the tenant in occupation of the disputed accommodation which is known as "Deodar Cottage" at Nainital for the several years. He is a Dental Surgeon and was practising at Nainital, having his dental clinic there. It appears that in the year 1976 Dr. Patel had to go to the United States, it is asserted by him, temporarily for further studies and training in Dental Surgery. It is alleged by Dr. Patel that one Mrs. Anil Bisht, the sister of Dr. Patel's wife, was also residing with him. 4. On 20th April, 1976 Mrs. Anil Bisht addressed a letter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Nainital (R. C. and E. O. for short) in which she asserted that Dr. Patel was temporarily going abroad and he was willing to allow her to be in occupation of the house during his absence and was further willing that the tenancy of the house be transferred in her favour so as to avoid any legal complications which might arise in consequence of Dr. Patel's absence from Nainital. 5. Dr. Patel himself wrote a letter on 21-4-1976 in which he stated thus "In view of my proposed visit abroad I am willing to release the accommodation in favour of Mrs. Anil Bisht only, who is present residing with me". Upon this, the R. C. & E. O. first declared a vacancy by his order dated 22-4-1976 and then passed an order of allotment in favour of Mrs. Anil Bisht on 30-4-1976. By another letter dated 8-5-1976 Dr. Patel informed the landlord that Mrs. Bisht would be his new tenant and that she had already taken possession in pursuance of the allotment order. 6. After this order of allotment Mrs. Anil Bisht on 30-4-1976. By another letter dated 8-5-1976 Dr. Patel informed the landlord that Mrs. Bisht would be his new tenant and that she had already taken possession in pursuance of the allotment order. 6. After this order of allotment Mrs. Anil Bisht informed the District Magistrate that in pursuance of the order of allotment passed in her favour she has occupied the premises. On 12th May, 1976, however, the landlord made an application for review of the order of allotment under S. 16 (5) of the Act. This application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order dated 26-7-1976 against which the landlord filed a revision before the learned District Judge, Nainital, who by his order dated 14-11-1977 allowed the revision and set aside the order of allotment dated 30-4-1976 and remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for reconsideration. Against this order Smt. And Bisht filed a writ petition in this Court which, as mentioned above, was dismissed but with certain directions to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition Mrs. R. S. Patel made an application on 30-8-1979 on the assertion that she along with her children had returned to Nainital in Feb., 1979 and got her two daughters admitted in a school at Nainital. It was further asserted that the family had gone to the United States only for a temporary period and that Dr. R. S. Patel was also expected to join the family after two months. The house-hold effects of Dr. Patel were still lying in the disputed accommodation and neither in fact nor in law the premises ever fell vacant. This Court while remanding the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer observed that a clear finding should be given on the question of vacancy as to under which of the three clauses of S. 12 (1) the case fell in the light of all the facts and circumstances including the subsequent development which in the opinion of this Court were relevant for the determination of the question of vacancy. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was asked to give an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the said question. 7. After the remand of the case the parties filed fresh evidence, including, inter alia, the affidavit of Mrs. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was asked to give an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the said question. 7. After the remand of the case the parties filed fresh evidence, including, inter alia, the affidavit of Mrs. R. S. Patel in which she asserted that the family had gone to the United States for a temporary period and that now it has returned to Nainital. The electricity bills as well as other receipts were also filed in support of the assertion that the premises were being used by the family members of Dr. Patel. A letter was also filed to show that two daughters of Dr. Patel were studying respectively in classes two and six at Nainital. Evidence was also adduced to show that Dr. Patel had returned to India and was the Medical Officer attached to all the four schools situate at Nainital and that he was carrying on his profession as a Dental Surgeon there residing in the disputed accommodation. Mrs. Anil Bisht was in occupation of the disputed accommodation only as a caretaker during the temporary absence of Dr. Patel's family from Nainital. The landlord, on the other hand, appears to have asserted that Dr. Patel had left permanently the disputed accommodation after removing his house-hold effects and had allowed the same to be occupied by Mrs. Anil Bisht, who was not a member of Dr. Patel's family within the meaning of the Act. According to the landlord the disputed accommodation was liable to be deemed vacant under all the three clauses, namely, (a),(b) and (c) of S. 12 (1) of the Act. 8. After the remand of the case the Rent Control Inspector was also asked to make a local inspection of the disputed accommodation and submit a report. He submitted a report dated 4th April, 1980 to the effect that the house was in occupation of Dr. Patel's family and that his household effects were also there. According to the report the accommodation could not be treated to be vacant. 9. Before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer it was contended on behalf of Dr. Patel that the house was not liable to be deemed vacant under any of the three cls. Patel's family and that his household effects were also there. According to the report the accommodation could not be treated to be vacant. 9. Before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer it was contended on behalf of Dr. Patel that the house was not liable to be deemed vacant under any of the three cls. (a) (b) and (c) as he had not taken up any permanent residence in the United States nor had he allowed it to be occupied by any person not being a member of his family, nor even had he removed his effects from the premises. It was asserted that Dr. Patel had gone to the United States only for a temporary period and that Mrs. Bisht was in occupation as a caretaker on his behalf during his absence abroad. The landlord, on the other hand, asserted that the accommodation was liable to be deemed vacant as the tenant had allowed the same to be occupied by Mrs. Anil Bisht who was not a member of his family. 10. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 11th July. 1980 held that the accommodation was liable to be deemed vacant under cl. (b) of S. 12 on the ground that the tenant had allowed the accommodation to be occupied by Mrs. Anil Bisht who was not a member of his family. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer observed that even if any of the three cls. (a) (b) . and (c) of S. 12 was attracted to the facts, it was sufficient for notification of vacancy. Thereafter by a subsequent order dated 23rd September, 1980 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the case of the landlord for release and rejected his application on the ground that he does not bona fide need the accommodation for his own occupation. Having rejected the landlord's application the Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the claim of other applicants for allotment and held that Asha Ram was best entitled to the allotment of the accommodation and he passed an order accordingly. 11. Three revisions were filed against the aforesaid orders. The revisional Court considered the evidence on the record and according to it in view of the various letters addressed by Dr. 11. Three revisions were filed against the aforesaid orders. The revisional Court considered the evidence on the record and according to it in view of the various letters addressed by Dr. Patel himself he must be deemed to have severed all his connections with the tenancy rights, and, relying on the said letters it held that Dr. Patel had vacated the accommodation in April-May, 1976 after handing over possession to Mrs. Bisht. On a further finding that the landlord did not bona fide require the disputed accommodation it dismissed all the three revisions. 12. For the petitioners, the first and the main contention raised by Sri S. S. Bhatnagar was that in view of the fact that Mrs. Bisht had come to occupy the premises in pursuance of an order of allotment, cl. (b) of S. 12 could not legally apply. For, it was urged, it cannot be said that Mrs. Bisht was allowed by Dr. Patel to occupy the accommodation. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the order of allotment dated 1-5-1976 passed in favour of Mrs. Bisht was subsequently set aside would not alter this legal position. 13. I cannot agree. Before I deal with the above legal contention, I may clear the factual position. In his letter dated 21-4-1976, referred to above, Dr. Patel's assertion was that Mrs. Bisht was already residing with him. Strictly, therefore Dr. Patel cannot now contend that it was not he who had allowed Mrs. Bisht to occupy the premises, nor that Mrs. Bisht came to occupy the premises in pursuance only of the allotment order. 14. Further, before the Courts below the contention was not that Dr. Patel had not allowed Mrs. Bisht to occupy the premises but it was that Mrs. Bisht had been allowed by him to occupy the accommodation only as a caretaker which plea has been validly rejected by the revisional Court for very good and logical reasons. The finding that Mrs. Bisht was not in occupation as a mere caretaker seems to be entirely unexceptionable, and, is indeed very well reasoned, calling for no interference. The revisional Court has rightly commented that the letters written by Dr. Patel as well as his conduct and stand taken throughout the pendency of the proceedings lead to the inescapable conclusion that Dr. Patel had actually vacated the disputed accommodation and handed over its possession to Mrs. The revisional Court has rightly commented that the letters written by Dr. Patel as well as his conduct and stand taken throughout the pendency of the proceedings lead to the inescapable conclusion that Dr. Patel had actually vacated the disputed accommodation and handed over its possession to Mrs. Bisht in May, 1976 surrendering all his tenancy rights therein. 15. Turning now to the above legal submission, I find that the evidence brought on the record by the parties completely militates against the contention that Mrs. Bisht was allowed to occupy the accommodation by the R. C. & E. O. and not by Dr. Patel. In my opinion, the letters of Dr. Patel written at the relevant time as well as the stand taken by him throughout the proceedings leave no manner of doubt that Mrs. Bisht was inducted by Dr. Patel himself. The evidence on record does not at all countenance the submission that Dr. Patel had no role to play in the induction of Mrs. Bisht over the disputed premises. 16. As already noted in the very first letter written by Mrs. Bisht on 21-4-1976, she had asserted that Dr. Patel was going abroad and was willing to let her occupy the house, and, further that Dr. Patel was agreeable to the transfer of the tenancy rights in her favour. Indeed the request in that letter was significant and it was as follows "I therefore submit that the transfer of tenancy may please be permitted to relieve my hardship. This letter was immediately followed by a letter dated 21-4-1976 written by Dr. Patel to the R. C. & E. O. which has already been quoted above. This was followed up by yet another letter dated 8-5-1976 written by Dr. Patel to M. A. Khan, the landlord which deserves to be quoted in extenso:- "Dear Shri M. A. Khan, Please find enclosed a cheque for Rs.545-30 p. (rupees five hundred forty five and paise thirty only) towards the Payment of rent of your property `the Deodars, Nainital from 1st Jan., 1976 up to May, 1976. Your new tenant Mrs. Anil Bisht has taken the possession of the Deodars from me as per the instruction from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Nainital. She will pay the rent for the rest of the year and thereafter. Please acknowledge a receipt. Your new tenant Mrs. Anil Bisht has taken the possession of the Deodars from me as per the instruction from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Nainital. She will pay the rent for the rest of the year and thereafter. Please acknowledge a receipt. Thanks to you for allowing us to stay at the Deodars and for your co-operation. Yours sincerely. (R. S. Patel)". 17. The aforesaid letters make it abundantly clear that Dr. Patel was not only anxious and willing that Mrs. Bisht should occupy the premises in her own right but that his tenancy rights therein should also come to vest in Mrs. Bisht. Indeed, Dr. Patel had done all that he could ensure that Mrs. Bisht occupies the accommodation in her own right. He played an active role in the allotment of the premises and in ensuring that Mrs. Bisht occupies the premises as tenant in her own right, he himself severing all his connections with the accommodation. Mrs. Bisht in her letter dated 20-4-1976 unequivocally states that Dr. Patel was willing to let her occupy the house as well as for transference in her favour of the tenancy rights. Dr. Patel thereafter by a letter dated 21-4-1976 promptly informed the R. C. & E. O. that he had no objection to the house being released in favour of Mrs. Bisht. Not content with that, Dr. Patel hastened to write to the landlord that Mrs. Bisht has already taken possession of the house and that henceforth she would pay the rent "for the rest of the year and thereafter". This letter leaves no manner of doubt that Dr. Patel had vacated the house and allowed it to be occupied by Mrs. Bisht, severing all his connections with the occupation of or tenancy rights in the disputed accommodation. After the house was allotted to Mrs. Bisht. Dr. Patel left the scene completely until the appeal of the landlord was allowed and Mrs. Patel returned to India nearly three years after the date of allotment in favour of Mrs. Bisht. Even the petition in this Court against the order of the learned District Judge passed in 1977 was filed by Mrs. Bisht and not by Dr. Patel. 18. These are admitted facts and in the face of these letters and the role of Dr. Patel, it is idle to contend that Mrs. Bisht was not allowed by Dr. Bisht. Even the petition in this Court against the order of the learned District Judge passed in 1977 was filed by Mrs. Bisht and not by Dr. Patel. 18. These are admitted facts and in the face of these letters and the role of Dr. Patel, it is idle to contend that Mrs. Bisht was not allowed by Dr. Patel to occupy the house but that she came to occupy the house otherwise i.e. in her own under an order of allotment. S. 12 (1) (b) reads thus: "12 (1) - A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if- (a) he has substantially removed his effects therefrom, or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family.". 19. The language used by the Statute is "allowed it to be occupied." To allow means to permit. There can be no manner of doubt that not only had Dr. Patel stood aside and permitted Mrs. Bisht to occupy the accommodation but he had actively worked, if not connived at, towards that end, namely, occupation by Mrs. Bisht in her own right as a full-fledged tenant. I, therefore find no merit in this contention that Dr. Patel had not allowed Mrs. Bisht to occupy the premises. 20. It may be that in certain set of circumstances where the previous tenant in occupation has no option but to hand over involuntarily vacant possession to an allottee the tenant may contend that it is not he who has allowed the allottee to occupy so as to attract S. 12 (1) (b), but that the allottee came entirely in pursuance of an allotment order. But where, as here, the tenant does everything that lies in his power to facilitate entry upon the premises of a person who is not a member of his family, there cannot be any doubt that it is the tenant who will be deemed to have allowed the allottee to occupy the premises. My conclusion, therefore, is that the courts below have rightly held that the disputed accommodation was liable to be deemed vacant under S. 12 (1) (b). 21. My conclusion, therefore, is that the courts below have rightly held that the disputed accommodation was liable to be deemed vacant under S. 12 (1) (b). 21. The next contention was that the R. C. & E. O. committed an error of law in not recording a finding in compliance with the order of remand passed by this Court on the question whether Dr. Patel had taken up residence elsewhere which was not a temporary residence. It was urged that this Court had specifically directed the R. C. & E. 0. to take into account the subsequent developments, namely, the return of Dr. Patel's family to India at Nainital. 22. I find no merit in the above contention either. The R. C. & E. O. would have been better advised to give a finding on whether cl. (c) of S. 12 (1) was not also attracted to the facts of the present case in view of the observations made by this Court in the order of remand. However, in the view which the R. C. & E. O. has taken as regards the applicability of S. 12 (1) (b) he did not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the accommodation was also liable to be deemed vacant under S. 12 (1) (c). As I am upholding the finding of the courts below that the accommodation was liable to be deemed vacant under S. 12 (1) (b), it is not necessary to send back the case to the R. C. & E. O. for a finding whether the accommodation is also liable to be deemed vacant under cl. (c) of S. 12 (1) as well, in connection with which alone the question whether Dr. Patel had gone to the United States temporarily or he had taken up residence there permanently arose. The omission of the R. C. & E. O. to record a finding on this issue, therefore, does not materially affect the position. However, be that as it may, the revisional Court has considered the effect of the returned of Dr. Patel's family to India and has , rightly commented that vacancy having come into existence in consequence of Dr. Patel having allowed the premises to be occupied by Mrs. Bisht, his return to India subsequently or intention to reoccupy the premises would not affect the issue of vacancy. 23. Patel's family to India and has , rightly commented that vacancy having come into existence in consequence of Dr. Patel having allowed the premises to be occupied by Mrs. Bisht, his return to India subsequently or intention to reoccupy the premises would not affect the issue of vacancy. 23. The last submission was that the revisional Court was exercising a limited jurisdiction under S. 18 and it could not base its findings on any new ground. 24. I do not find any merit in the above argument. The revisional court has affirmed the conclusion of the R. C. & E. O. It has not varied the order of the R. C. & E. O. in any way. Nor has it proceeded on any new ground not pleaded before the R. C. & E. O. It has simply given more elaborate reasons for arriving at the conclusion that Dr. Patel had left the accommodation, allowing it to be occupied by Mrs. Bisht, abandoning and relinquishing all his connections with the disputed accommodation. This conclusion is fully borne out by facts which were mold disputed by the petitioner. 25. No other point was urged in support of the petition and consequently the same is liable to be dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, however it seems necessary in the interest of justice to allow Dr. Patel some time to vacate the disputed accommodation. 26. Coming to the Writ Petition No. 9630 of 1981, the concurrent finding of the courts below is that the need set up by the landlord is not bona fide and genuine. This finding has not been demonstrated to be vitiated by any error of law. Indeed, learned counsel for the landlord made no attempt to show that the conclusion reached by the courts below is vitiated by any error of law or fact. 27. In the result, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs. 28. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6542 of 1981 are, however, granted time until the 31st of July, 1983 to vacate the disputed accommodation. They will vacate the accommodation on or before 31-7-1983. 27. In the result, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs. 28. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6542 of 1981 are, however, granted time until the 31st of July, 1983 to vacate the disputed accommodation. They will vacate the accommodation on or before 31-7-1983. Further, they will deposit with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer or pay directly to the landlord the entire arrears of rent/damages due up to date together with rent/damages for the period ending 31st of July, 1983 within a period of three months from today. In. the event of default, the respondents shall be at liberty to enforce the order of eviction against the petitioners.