JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - In this petition, at the time of admission of the petition, appearance was put on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present petition, relates to house No. 1351, situate in Mohalla Uttar Chappatti, Mainipuri. The petitioner Sri Krishna Sharma is a tenant of the said premises and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the landlords. 4. By order dated 12th March, 1981, the property in dispute was declared vacant in view of Section 12(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the members of the family of the tenant had acquired a residential building in the same city and, as such he would be deemed to have vacated the building under his tenancy. Thereafter, by order dated 15th November, 1983, the property was released in favour of the landlord. Both the orders declaring vacancy as well as release were challenged by means of revisions under Section 18 of the Act. The revisions were dismissed by an order dated 15th July, 1988. It is this order which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. It is not disputed that Sushil Kumar Sharma, the son of the petitioner and Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of the petitioner, had purchased house Nos. 862 and 863 in Mohalla Phatak Lal Imli, Mainpuri, through separate sale-deeds. 6. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has found that after purchasing the houses in dispute they were reconstructed. House No. 862, after re-construction, was let out to Ram Shanker on Ist May, 1975. This finding has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. It is, consequently, clear that the members of the family of the petitioner did acquire a house which was in a vacant state and, consequently, the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act apply to the facts of the present case. It cannot, therefore, be said that authorities below have erred in holding the property to be vacant. The houses which have been purchased admittedly belong to the son and the wife of the petitioner who are the members of the family of the tenant. 7. It cannot, therefore, be said that authorities below have erred in holding the property to be vacant. The houses which have been purchased admittedly belong to the son and the wife of the petitioner who are the members of the family of the tenant. 7. It has came on the record that Smt. Shanti Devi wife of the petitioner had filed a Small Cause Court Suit No. 38 of 1978 against Ram Shankar Shukla. This suit was decreed on 3rd May, 1978. The son of the petitioner also filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against Chunnan Khan. The release application was allowed by the prescribed Authority on 30th April, 1981. Therefore, the actual position is that even after the letting out of two houses purchased by the members of the family, the son and the wife of the petitioner obtained decrees for ejectment as well as the release order in respect of the said houses and instead of getting the said decree and the release order enforced, during the pendency of this litigation in the year 1982, they have sold away the houses to third person with the intention of circumventing the provisions of the Act. 8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The release application was filed as far back as in 1979 and has remained pending for all these years due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner. In the circumstances the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 28th July, 1988, extended from time to time, is hereby vacated.