JUDGMENT S.D.Agarwala 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The property in dispute is a house, situate in Sabzi Mandiganj, Moradabad. The petitioner is the tenant. Sri Gopal, respondent no. 3, is the landlord. The property in dispute consists of a room and a Kothari. Sri Gopal, the landlord, alleged that the western portion of the property in possession of Karam Chand, the tenant, is in occupation of Hansraj, respondent no. 4, who carries on the business of general merchandise. The allegation was that Karam Chand had permitted the said western portion to be occupied by Hansraj, who is not a member of his family, and, consequently, the western portion be deemed to be vacant in the eye of law. It was further prayed that since the property in dispute was to be deemed to be vacant and the need of Sri Gopal, the landlord, was genuine and bona fide, therefore, it be released in his favour. After the making of this application, the Rent Control Inspector inspected the premises in dispute and submitted his report on 13th November, 1980 Thereafter, by an order dated 22nd September, 1982, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after examining the evidence on the record, held the portion of the property in occupation of Karam Chand to be deemed to be vacant and, thereafter, on 11th March, 1983, the release application was allowed and the accommodation consisting of a room and a Kothari was released in favour of Sri Gopal for the purposes of his residence and the members of his family. Aggrieved by the decision dated 11th March, 1983, a revision was Died. The revhional authority by an order dated 10th August, 1983, dismissed the revision. Karam Chand, the petitioner, has now challenged the orders dated 10th August, 1983, and the release order dated 11th March, 1983. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the landlord respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of release as well as the revisional order is invalid on the ground that the property could not have been deemed to be vacant, as the ingredients necessary for declaring it to be vacant were not in existence in the instant case. Section 12 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Section 12 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is quoted below : "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) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or 5. Section 12 of the Act clearly provides that the building under tenancy or a part thereof can be held to be vacant provided it is found that the tenant has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. The Rent Control Inspector inspected the premises on 13th November, 1980, and it was found that the tenant had permitted the disputed portion to be occupied by Hansraj for the purpose of carrying business by Hansraj. Ramesh Chandra Porwal, an independent witness, has also filed an affidavit stating that, in fact, he had seen Hansraj having access to this accommodation and it was Hansraj, who was using the accommodation for the purpose of carrying on the business of general merchandise. 6. After examining the evidence led on behalf of the landlord as well as on behalf of the petitioner tenant, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer believed the evidence led on behalf of the landlord and clearly found that the tenant had permitted Hansraj to occupy the disputed portion. It is not disputed that Hansraj is not a member of his family. In view of this finding, the provisions of section 12 (1) (b) of the Act clearly apply. This finding has been affirmed by the revisional authority. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order declaring deemed vacancy was an order manifestly erroneous. It is based on evidence and the finding has been recorded after disbelieving the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner tenant. This finding has been affirmed by the revisional authority. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order declaring deemed vacancy was an order manifestly erroneous. It is based on evidence and the finding has been recorded after disbelieving the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty, 198(5 SC and FB RC 44 in which it has been held that in order to prove tenancy or sub-tenancy, two ingredients have to be established ; firstly, that the tenant must have exclusive right of possession or interest in the premises of part of the premises in question and, secondly, that right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. The principle laid down in the case of Dipak Banerjee v, Lilabati Chakraborty (supra) does not apply to the present case. In the case of Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty (supra) the meaning and extent of the expression 'sub-tenant' was being considered. In the instant case, according to section 12 (1) (b) of the Act, it is not necessary that the deemed vacancy can only be there where sub-tenancy is established. Here, deemed vacancy would arise if a tenant has permitted the premises or part thereof to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. It is not necessary for the landlord to establish the case of sub-tenancy. 7. From the finding recorded, it is apparent that exclusive possession has been given to Hansraj of the portion in dispute and he was found to occupy the same and was further found to be using the same for his business purposes. In the circumstances, the case clearly falls under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. In view of the finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The petitioner, however, prays for three months' time to vacate the premises. This prayer, in my opinion, is justified. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The petitioner, however, prays for three months' time to vacate the premises. This prayer, in my opinion, is justified. The petitioner is permitted to vacate the premises in dispute and hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within three months from today, provided he gives an undertaking before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within a month from today that he would vacate the premises in dispute immediately after the expiry of three months from today and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. In case no such undertaking is given before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the release order shall be enforced forthwith. Petition dismissed.