JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - After the petition was filed in this Court and before admission of the petition, counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit and supplementary rejoinder-affidavit have been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The property in dispute is house No. 363, Civil Lines, Jhansi. It was initially occupied by the office of the Local-Self-Government Deptt., 14th Division, Jhansi. L.R. Mittal, respondent No. 3, is the landlord of the said premises. When he came to know that the property was about to fall vacant, he made an application for release on 4th December, 1976, on the ground that considering the members of the family and considering the fact that he has no other house to live and that he is living in a house of his brother, who is also pressing upon him to vacate the premises, he applied for release of the said house in his favour under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The department vacated the premises in 1979. Consequently, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the property as vacant and directed the Inspector to report the application for release made by the landlord. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report in detail on 13th December, 1979. In the report, it was categorically found that the landlord was staying in a house belonging to his brother and that the house being below the level of the road, water accumulates and the walls of the house are wet. In effect, the allegations made in the release application were endorsed by the Rent Control Inspector. 4. One P.D. Khare whose heirs are petitioners in this Court, was the Additional District Magistrate at Jhansi. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the release application moved by the landlord simply on the ground that since no affidavit or evidence had been filed in support of the application for release, the bonafide need was not established and allotted the premises to the Additional District Judge, Magistrate. 5. From a reading of the order, it is apparent that though there was nothing to controvert the allegations made by the landlord, the Authority wanted to allot the accommodation to the District Magistrate and, hence, the release application was rejected. This order was passed on 23rd Feb. 1980. 5. From a reading of the order, it is apparent that though there was nothing to controvert the allegations made by the landlord, the Authority wanted to allot the accommodation to the District Magistrate and, hence, the release application was rejected. This order was passed on 23rd Feb. 1980. Against the aforesaid order, the landlord filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act. The revision Court allowed the revision and released the house in dispute in favour of the landlord on 29th September, 1984. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. 6. The ground on which the revision has been allowed is that there were no facts controverting the allegations made by the landlord yet the release application was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, simply on the ground that no affidavit was filed in support of the application though there was clearly a report of the Rent Control Inspector on the record. 7. I have examined the order in revision. I do not find any illegality in the same which requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question of allotment would arise only if the release application had been dismissed and, consequently, it was a jurisdictional fact which the revisional Court was entitled to examine. 8. During the pendency of this petition in this Court, further relevant facts have come to the notice of this Court which are very relevant. P.D. Khare to whom the property in dispute was allotted was, after a few months, transferred to Kanpur from Jhansi where the property is situate. He took over as city Magistrate, Kanpur, on 7th October, 1980. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Jhansi, consequently, by an order dated 17th October, 1980, cancelled the allotment order in favour of P.D. Khare, as he has been transferred. Inspite of the fact that the allotment order has been cancelled, P.D. Khare did not vacate the premises and remained in unauthorised occupation of the same. It has further come to light that, at Kanpur, P.D. Khare was allotted another house No. 8/6, Arya Nagar, Kanpur, which was a Government Officers residence and he started living with his family in the said house. This allegation has been made in Paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit of L.R. Mittal. It has further come to light that, at Kanpur, P.D. Khare was allotted another house No. 8/6, Arya Nagar, Kanpur, which was a Government Officers residence and he started living with his family in the said house. This allegation has been made in Paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit of L.R. Mittal. It is based on the own admission of P.D. Khare in a counter-affidavit which had been filed in Rent Control Revision No. 76 of 1980 and, consequently, I am inclined to believe the said fact. Inspite of the fact that he got another property allotted at Kanpur still he did not vacate the premises. 9. Under Section 12(3-A) of the Act it is clearly provided that in case a Government servant is transferred to some other city then that tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the said building which he occupied before transfer. It is not disputed that there was an allotment order in favour of P.D. Khare in respect of a house at Kanpur and, consequently, under the above section, the property would deemed to be vacant and yet P.D. Khare continued to occupy the disputed premises. 10. In the supplementary counter-affidavit of L.R. Mittal in this Court, it has been further stated that the brother of L.R. Mittal, namely, Dr. R.R. Mittal, has got vacated the portion of the house in which the landlord was living and has sold the said house. The landlord is, consequently, living in a very small portion of another house. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that the need of the landlord is genuine. In view of these facts also, I do not think it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Shri P.D. Khare retired from service in 1983 and, thereafter, he died. The heirs of P.D. Khare are living in the property in dispute. In the interest of justice, consequently it is necessary to grant some time to the petitioners to vacate the premises. The petitioners are granted six months' time as a special case to vacate the premises in question in order to enable them to make an alternative arrangement for their residence. In the interest of justice, consequently it is necessary to grant some time to the petitioners to vacate the premises. The petitioners are granted six months' time as a special case to vacate the premises in question in order to enable them to make an alternative arrangement for their residence. In case the petitioners desire to live in Jhansi then it would be open to them to move an application for allotment before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jhansi, and I direct that if any such application is made and if any accommodation is vacant, the case of the petitioners may be considered sympathetically. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 16.10.1984 is hereby vacated.