JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition is directed against declaration of vacancy of accommodation under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972). The dispute in the petition pertains to ground floor of House No. 7, Sunder Bagh, Lucknow, owned by Sri Roshan Lal Sahgal, Opposite Party No. 3. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner Om Prakash Khanna was tenant of the disputed accommodation on behalf of Sri Roshan Lal Sahgal. It appears that tenancy was created in his favour some time in June, 1965. The petitioner was transferred to Calcutta. According to his statement in paragraph 3 of the petition, this transfer took place in July, 1983. Opposite Party No. 2 Sri Udai Pratap Singh made an application to Opposite Party No. 1 for allotment of the accommodation in dispute on the basis that the same had fallen vacant by the transfer of the petitioner to Calcutta and his taking up permanent residence there. On the basis of this application, report was obtained from the Senior Inspector who submitted the same on 12-8-1985. The Senior Inspector confirmed that the petitioner had been transferred to Calcutta and the premises was lying in locked condition. The petitioner filed has own affidavit and also the affidavits of the landlord Sri Roshan Lal Sahgal and of certain witnesses in support of his plea that he has not permanently shifted to Calcutta. Sri Udai Pratap Singh, opposite Singh, Opposite Party No. 2, filed his own affidavit and reiterated that the accommodation in question was to be treated as having fallen vacant under Section 12 (1) (c) of the aforesaid Act. 3. Opposite Party No. 1 has accepted the case of Sri Udai Pratap Singh that the premises has fallen vacant. While recording the finding of vacancy he has referred to the relevant evidence on record, including the Senior Inspector's report and the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties. He has observed that the petitioner has been transferred to Calcutta where he is working and his wife too has taken up employment at Calcutta and his children have also taken admission in Educational Institutions at Calcutta and on this basis he has come to the conclusion that the accommodation in question is to be deemed to have fallen vacant under clause (c) of Section 12 (1). 4. 4. The petitioner does not dispute that he has been transferred to Calcutta and that his wife has taken up employment at Calcutta and further that his children have been admitted in educational, institution at Calcutta. He, however, submits that he has not been able to get an accommodation at Calcutta and, therefore, the accommodation in question cannot be deemed to have fallen vacant. His further plea is that his transfer to Calcutta is on a temporary basis and, therefore, too the accommodation cannot be said to have fallen vacant. Section 12 (1) (e) reads as follows :- "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) .......... (b) .......... (c) in the case of a revisional building he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere." The submission of the learned Counsel is that the accommodation in question would be deemed to have fallen vacant under the above clause only if the petitioner has taken up permanent residence at Calcutta. According to him no permanent residence have been acquired by the petitioner at Calcutta and, therefore, clause (c) is inapplicable. 5. From the facts about which there is no dispute between the parties it is apparent that the petitioner has taken up residence at Calcutta. It is true that neither the concerned authority nor Opposite party No. 2 have pointed out any accommodation which the petitioner may have acquired at Calcutta for his residence but that, in my opinion, is immaterial because from the material on record it appears that the petitioner does not require a separate accommodation at Calcutta. This is apparent from his affidavit, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 10 of the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of this affidavit the petitioner has stated thus "No doubt the deponent, tenant of the residential building holds a transferable post under Messrs Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises while posted here at Lucknow as Divisional Manager since 1965 has applied to his employer for a temporary transfer to Calcutta in order to look after his aged parents more than 75 years of age, living there and on his request he has been temporarily posted at Calcutta since 1983. Neither official accommodation is provided by the employer in the city of Calcutta to which the deponent has been transferred nor any accommodation has been allotted to him under the provisions of the West Bengal Statutes." From these averments it apparent that the petitioner sought his transfer to Calcutta in order to be able to look after his aged parents. Obviously his parents have already a house at Calcutta and the petitioner has also started living in the said house. It is not the petitioner's case that he applied for allotment of accommodation under the West Bengal Statutes but was unable to get one. The petitioner did not place on record a copy of the transfer order from which it could be ascertained that his transfer was of a temporary nature or for a short duration, The petitioner has himself stated that his post is transferable. Once he is transferred from one station to another, the transfer will be deemed to be of a permanent nature. It may be of a temporary nature when the transfer order is for a specified period. In the present case, as already stated, the petitioner has not filed a copy of the transfer order and, therefore, it is not possible to say that he has taken up residence at Calcutta on temporary basis. Independent accommodation at Calcutta, it appears, the petitioner does not require. 6. The petitioner filed documents to show that he had got his goods in the house insured against burglary or theft. It may be that the petitioner has not removed his goods from the house in question but this is not material for the purpose of clause (c) but is material only for the purposes of clause (a). The finding of vacancy, in the present case, has not been recorded under clause (a) but under clause (c). Mere keeping of luggage at Lucknow will not confer any benefit to the petitioner from the purposes of applying clause (c). 7. In view of the above, in my opinion, the finding on the question of deemed Vacancy does not suffer from any apparent error. Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Interim order, if any shall stand discharged.