JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - this writ petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur dated May 20, 1981 and the order of the Revisional Authority (District Judge, Kanpur) dated June 30, 1981. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are these : A Hindu undivided family, of which the petitioner is the Karta, is the owner and landlord of house No. 106/61, Gandhi Chowk, Kanpur. A part of this house was in occupation of Shri R.S. Tripathi, Munsif, Kanpur, as a tenant. Shri Tripathi was transferred to Barabanki and joined there some time in January 1977. The petitioner filed an application for release of this accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly the Act) on the ground of bonafide requirement for occupation by the members of his family. This application was moved on February 7, 1977. Some persons including Smt. Bina Bhargava present respondent No. 3, made application for allotment of the said accommodation. The application for release as well as the application for allotment came up before the Rent Control Tribunal, Kanpur for disposal. By order dated April 27, 1977 the Tribunal rejected the release application of the landlord on the ground that the tenant Sri Tripathi had vacated the accommodation and, therefore, the release application had become infructuous; and directed the file to be put up on June 11, 1977 for further orders. The Tribunal allotted the accommodation to Sri T.N. Srivastava, Senior Inspector (Rent Control) by order dated May 9, 1977. The landlord filed appeal before the District Judge against the order of rejection of his release application. He also filed a revision in the Court of the District Judge against the order of allotment dated May 9, 1977. Smt. Bina Bhargava also filed a revision in the Court of District Judge against that allotment order. On March 16, 1978, the landlord and Sri R.S. Tripathi filed a compromise in the appeal saying that the accommodation in question be released in favour of the landlord and possession of the accommodation in question be delivered to him (landlord). The compromise was verified on May 3, 1978. On March 16, 1978, the landlord and Sri R.S. Tripathi filed a compromise in the appeal saying that the accommodation in question be released in favour of the landlord and possession of the accommodation in question be delivered to him (landlord). The compromise was verified on May 3, 1978. The learned Additional District Judge before whom the appeal and the two revisions were pending, allowed the appeal and the two revisions by order dated May 20, 1978 and remanded the case for a fresh decision according to law. By the time this order was passed, the Rent Control Tribunal had been abolished and the power to decide release application under Section 21 of the Act was given to Prescribed Authority (Second Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur) for disposal. The allotment applications went before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for disposal. On July 26, 1978 the landlord moved an application for release of the accommodation in his personal need. This application also came up for decision before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application under Section 21(1)(a) by order dated September 1, 1979 in view of the compromise which had been verified before the learned Additional District Judge. In pursuance of this order the petitioner obtained possession over the accommodation through police on October 29, 1979. 3. The landlord filed a copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated September 1, 1979 before the Rent Control Eviction Officer and he also informed the said officer that he had also obtained actual possession over the accommodation in pursuance of that order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, proceeded to consider the release application under Section 16(1)(b) and the allotment applications. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, held that the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act were of no consequence because they were taken after the tenant Sri Tripahti had vacated the accommodation. He, therefore, declined to act on the order dated September 1, 1979. On the question of the need, the held that the landlord had no bonafide need to have the accommodation in question. In the result the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the release application of the landlord under Section 16(1)(b). Since T.N. Srivastava had been transferred and Smt. Bina Bhargava was an applicant for allotment, the accommodation was allotted in her favour. In the result the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the release application of the landlord under Section 16(1)(b). Since T.N. Srivastava had been transferred and Smt. Bina Bhargava was an applicant for allotment, the accommodation was allotted in her favour. Aggrieved, the landlord filed revision in Court of District Judge, Kanpur. The learned District Judge held that on February 7, 1977 when the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was moved the building was about to fall vacant and, therefore, the said release application could not be made. An application for release under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act alone could be made. He further held that the compromise relied upon by the landlord was not a lawful compromise. In the compromise it was not said that the need of the landlord was bonafide. While passing the order dated September 1, 1979 the Prescribed Authority had also not said that it was satisfied that the landlord bonafide required the accommodation for his personal use. The order dated September 1, 1979 was ineffective and could not help the landlord. He also observed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had found that the need of the landlord was not bonafide. In the result the learned District Judge dismissed the revision. 4. Feeling aggrieved the landlord challenged the order of the Revisional Authority and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Some other relevant facts may also be set out. Under order of the Rent Control Tribunal, the Rent Control Inspector inspected the accommodation in question on February 5, 1977 and submitted the report that Sri R.S. Tripathi Munsif had been transferred to Barabanki and had joined there and most probably he had got an accommodation there and his family would shift on February 14, 1977 and, therefore, it was a case of likely vacancy and the vacancy may be declared. A process server visited the accommodation in question on February 20, 1977 in order to serve a notice on Sri R.S. Tripathi and he reported that the neighbours had informed that Sri Tripathi had been transferred to Barabanki and had gone there and the house was locked. No objections were filed on behalf of the landlord to these reports. It was after these reports that the Rent Control Tribunal had rejected the landlord's release application under Section 21(1)(a) as being infructuous. No objections were filed on behalf of the landlord to these reports. It was after these reports that the Rent Control Tribunal had rejected the landlord's release application under Section 21(1)(a) as being infructuous. After the landlord moved release application under Section 16(1)(b) on July 26, 1978 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed an Inspector to inspect the accommodation and submit a report. The Inspector visited the accommodation on November 7, 1978 in the presence of the landlord and some witnesses and found that the accommodation in question was lying vacant any locked. After the order of the Prescribed Authority dated September 1, 1979 the landlord obtained possession over the accommodation in question through police. The report of the police dated October 29, 1979 is significant. It shows that the accommodation was locked, but when the lock was opened the accommodation was found totally vacant and there was no luggage in it. The report shows that no one admitted to have put the lock on the accommodation and also did not throw light on the point as to who was in possession of the accommodation. It is also significant to note that at no point of time the landlord cared to give out as to when Sri Tripathi got a living accommodation at Barabanki and when his family actually shifted from the accommodation in question, leaving it totally vacant. It was also not pointed out as up to what date Sri Tripathi has paid rent for the accommodation to the landlord. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on February 7, 1977 when the application for release under Section 21(1)(a) was moved, it could not be said that the accommodation was actually vacant or was about to fall vacant. In this connection he has referred to sub-section (3-A) of Section 12 of the Act and has urged that the accommodation could be deemed vacant on June 30, 1977, or the date of allotment of an accommodation at Barabanki to Sri Tripathi, whichever was later. This contention of the learned counsel is not legally well founded. If a tenant who holds a transferable post is transferred and actually vacates the tenanted accommodation, the same would become vacant on that particular date and to such a case sub-section (3-A) would not be applicable. This contention of the learned counsel is not legally well founded. If a tenant who holds a transferable post is transferred and actually vacates the tenanted accommodation, the same would become vacant on that particular date and to such a case sub-section (3-A) would not be applicable. Sub-section (3-A) which creates a legal fiction of deemed vacancy would be applicable where the tenant continues to occupy the accommodation notwithstanding the availability of accommodation at his new station. In the instant case, the landlord did not say that Sri Tripathi had not actually vacated the accommodation on or about February 14, 1977. As said earlier, he did not indicate as to when Sri Tripathi had obtained a living accommodation at Barabanki. On a consideration of the material available on the record, the learned District Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that on February 7, 1977 the vacancy of the accommodation in question was imminent and, therefore, no application for release under Section 21(1)(a) for eviction of the tenant, could be made. 8. The next submission of the learned counsel for the landlord petitioner is that the compromise dated March 16, 1978 and the order of the Prescribed Authority passed on its basis on September 1, 1979, were wrongly ignored by the learned District Judge and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. By ignoring the compromise and the order, these authorities, committed a serious error of law. This submission of the learned counsel is not well founded. The learned District Judge proceeded to consider whether compromise was a lawful one. He found as a fact that the compromise did not contain even an indication about the bonafide need of the landlord. The compromise was absolutely silent on this important point. He also found that the Prescribed Authority had not considered the important question of need while passing the order dated September 1, 1979. The order was passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It cannot be said that there was any express or implied admission of the tenant i.e., Sri Tripathi, about the bonafide need of the landlord. It is also clear that on the date of entering into the compromise Sri Tripathi had no interest left in the accommodation in question. His entering into a compromise with the landlord was nothing more than a concession or a generous gesture to him. It is also clear that on the date of entering into the compromise Sri Tripathi had no interest left in the accommodation in question. His entering into a compromise with the landlord was nothing more than a concession or a generous gesture to him. In Alla Bux v. The Additional District Judge, 1979 (U.P.) RCC 509, a learned Single Judge observed thus : "The law enjoins upon the authorities under the Act deciding an application under Section 21 of the Act to satisfy themselves about the bonafide requirement of the landlord. In the absence of such adjudication, it is not open to the authorities to allow such application. If the tenant admits the need of the landlord in a compromise arrived at and, if the circumstances so appear that the compromise does not appear to be collusive, then certainly, it would be open to the authorities to take into account this admission made by the tenant." 9. A similar view was taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Babu Lal Gupta v. The IInd Additional District Judge, 1979 (U.P.) RCC 1. In the instant case it is quite evident that Sri Tripathi had not admitted the need of the landlord and the Prescribed Authority had also not recorded this satisfaction on question of bonafide need of the landlord, before passing the order dated September 1, 1979. In these circumstances both the learned District Judge and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were legally justified to ignore the order of release dated September 1, 1979. 10. The categorical finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was that the landlord has sufficient accommodation with him and his need was not bonafide. This finding was upheld by the learned District Judge. This is a finding of fact and well-founded, and no error of law has been pointed out in it. 11. It is evident that in the instant case the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the learned District Judge are just and proper and do substantial justice between the parties. No case for interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of writ has been made out. This writ petition has no merits and must fail. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.