JUDGMENT B L. Loomba, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The controversy relates to first floor accommodation at 41-B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow. Dr. M. Nisar Beg was the owner-landlord of this building. The accommodation in question at the first floor consisting of two rooms and some open space was earlier occupied by one Bishambhar Lal who is said to have vacated the same. Dr. M. Nisar Beg applied for its release under section 16 (1) (b) of (J. P. Act XIII of 172 on the ground that this accommodation was needed by him for starting his medical professional practice. His application was allowed by order dated 20-9-1982 (Annexure-1). As is mentioned therein it had been given out by Dr. M Nisar Beg that the premises were required for starting his clinic and that he shall not let out to any one else. Accepting the prayer the accommodation was released in favour of Dr. M. Nisar Beg to enable him to start his own medical clinic. It appears, respondent Avdesh Singh, a practising Advocate at Lucknow made an application for allotment of these premises on 2-7-1983 for starting his professional chamber. It was given out in this application of allotment (Annexure-2) that it was a case of 'deemed vacancy' and the premises were under unauthorised occupation of Shri Salim Jehan. On the basis of this application inspection of the premises was made by the Rent Control Inspector and copy of his inspection report dated 3-8-1983 is Annexure-3 on record. According to this report this inspection was made when one Wajahat Hussain and Satish Kumar were present Wajahat Husain and Satish Kumar had given out orally before the Rent Control Inspector that from January, 1983 this accommodation was in the occupation and use for advertising business under the name and title Plain Pack Advertising and Marketing Company and this company was having 8 or 9 employees and its telephone number was 32166. Dr. M. Nisar Beg, Satish Kumar and Smt. Pawan Talwar were said to be partners of this company. According to this report, Dr. M. Nisar Beg was not present at the spot and no medical clinic articles were found there. In both the rooms the employees of the company were found working. Dr. M. Nisar Beg, Satish Kumar and Smt. Pawan Talwar were said to be partners of this company. According to this report, Dr. M. Nisar Beg was not present at the spot and no medical clinic articles were found there. In both the rooms the employees of the company were found working. According to this report Wajahat Hussain and Satish Kumar stated that no rent was being paid by them and the owner of the property was a partner. Some other persons, it is stated, informed the Inspector that the premises had been given by the landlord to the company. The Inspector, according to this report, then contacted Dr. M. Nisar Beg at 1, Victoria Street, Chowk, Lucknow, who informed the Inspector that the premises were released in his favour by order dated 20-9-1982 for starting his clinic but eventually he entered into partnership with the advertising company. In the later-part of the report it is mentioned that some articles of clinic of the owner were found at the first floor. In conclusion the Inspector reported that action under section 19 of the Act can be taken after affording opportunity to all the concerned. 3. After notice, Dr. M. Nisar Beg filed his written objection dated 9-12- 1983 to the application for allotment. Counter-affidavit was filed by Dr. M. Nisar Beg. Copies of objection and counter-affidavit are Annexures-5 and 6 In this objection and affidavit, the points submitted were that he had opened his clinic in the accommodation in question but the stair case having 24 zigzag wooden steps, it was found, was not conducive and convenient for the ailing patients to reach the accommodation and in this way he did not succeed in establishing his professional practice and then decided to use this accommodation "in a befitting and lucrative manner, and for that he had to adopt appropriate ways and means to set up and float the publicity work on a sound advice and sound technique and expertise, on experimental basis and such experiment still continues. In case, it also fails, the objector, who has spent about Rs. In case, it also fails, the objector, who has spent about Rs. 30,000/- on the repairs, renovations, furniture and fittings has a fundamental right to switch on to some other lucrative line of business for his survival" It was submitted that he was in continuous physical possession of the premises and, as such, section 19 was inapplicable and the proceedings were barred by time. 4. The Prescribed Authority considering the report of the Rent Control Inspector and the material placed in the form of affidavits of the parties recorded that the landlord had taken the stand that he was a partner in the advertising agency business but he failed to produce any document relating to the partnership and no accounts etc. were also brought on record to establish that, the business was started by the landlord either as. a sole owner or as a partner. One of the pleas raised by the landlord before the Prescribed Authority was that action under section 19 of the Act could be taken only within three months from the date on which the landlord allegedly started this business and, as such, no order could be passed under these provisions. According to the Prescribed Authority, it was a case not covered by section 19 because as per evidence landlord had passed on the possession of the premises to a third person and it was a case of 'deemed vacancy'. The persons who were in occupation and running the advertising business are unauthorised occupants. Accordingly, he passed orders for allotment of these premises in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by order passed by Prescribed Authority dated 11-7-1984, the review petition was filed by Dr. Nisar Beg but the same was dismissed on 15-12-1986. Revision against the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 11-7-1984 and 15-12-1986 was filed before the District Judge which was disposed of by VIII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, by his judgment and order dated 27-5-1987. During the course of this revision Dr. Nisar Beg died and his widow, the present petitioners were substituted as his legal representatives. It was held that the orders of the Prescribed Authority did not suffer from any jurisdictional or procedural illegality and that it was not open to the revisional court to re-appraise the evidence on record and give fresh finding of fact. Nisar Beg died and his widow, the present petitioners were substituted as his legal representatives. It was held that the orders of the Prescribed Authority did not suffer from any jurisdictional or procedural illegality and that it was not open to the revisional court to re-appraise the evidence on record and give fresh finding of fact. One of the contentions raised before the revisional court was that section 19 was inapplicable because application for allotment was moved after expiry of three months from the date of the release. This contention was rejected with the observation that this application was well within three months from the date of the knowledge of the use of the landlord for a purpose for which the release was sought and granted. Another submission raised was that the Prescribed Authority ought to have given notice to the landlord before notifying vacancy under section 12 (4) of the Act. This plea was also negatived with the observation that the revisionist-landlord Dr. Nisar Beg had put in appearance in the proceedings and, as such, no grievance could be raised that no opportunity was afforded to him to object to the impugned order declaring vacancy and passing the order of allotment. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Additional District Judge, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed on 1-6-1987. The grounds of challenge mainly raised are that the release order exhausted itself after the premises bad been occupied by the landlord; that the landlord has a fundamental right to change his occupati?n and use the released premises for a use most convenient and beneficial to him, that without cancelling the order of release no order for allotment of the premises could be legally passed and case is not covered either by section 12 or section 19 of the Act. 6. The first question that requires consideration is whether the case is covered by section 19 of the Act. This section as it clearly appears is enacted to provide for action where there is abuse on the part of the landlord of the order of release. As the language of this section shows it will have application in a case where the landlord puts the accommodation to any use other than the one for which it was released. This is the undisputed position that the landlord Dr. As the language of this section shows it will have application in a case where the landlord puts the accommodation to any use other than the one for which it was released. This is the undisputed position that the landlord Dr. Beg had put this accommodation to use other than for which release was sought and granted. His explanation for this use as he puts is that he had initially started his clinic in this premises but because of the zigzag inconvenient stair case he was not successful in his medical profession practice and then thought of using the premises in some other beneficial use and that is how he started the business of advertising agency. No clear and positive case was set up by Dr. Beg as at what point of time he put the premises in question to the use in advertising agency business. This was done without seeking any permission from the Prescribed Authority. As such, the order of release could be revoked and the premises allotted in favour of some one by the District Magistrate. The controversy is as to the period within, and, procedure according to which, orders for revocation of the release order and allotment of the premises could be made. According to the language of this section an application seeking revocation of the order of release and for allotment can be made within three months from the date on which the landlord abused the release order and started using the accommodation for a purpose other than the one for which the release was granted. The wisdom of the legislature in providing for the period of limitation within three months appears understandable because in the absence of any period of limitation it would be open to raise controversies as to the conversion of the use of the property and the abuse involved therein at any time to subsist for a long time. To avoid unsettled situation such a provision was accordingly made in the public interest. In Lakshmi Gupta v. Ist Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, 1982 (I) ARC 236, it was held that an application under section can be made only within a period of three months from the date of the abuse. To avoid unsettled situation such a provision was accordingly made in the public interest. In Lakshmi Gupta v. Ist Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, 1982 (I) ARC 236, it was held that an application under section can be made only within a period of three months from the date of the abuse. In the present case nothing could be made out by the respondents that the application seeking revocation of the release and for allotment was moved within three months from the date of the abuse. The premises were inspected by Rent Control Inspector and from the perusal of his inspection report dated 3-8-1983 it appears that some articles of clinic of the owner were found at the first floor even though in the earlier part of the report it was mentioned that no medical clinic articles were found therein. Conclusion on the basis of this report can justifiably be drawn that Dr. Beg initially started his clinic and perhaps on being unsuccessful he stopped his practice and thought of putting the premises to some other beneficial use. In the absence of any definite material on record, it is difficult to hold that the application of the respondent was made within three months from the date of the abuse. Accordingly no action could be taken under section 19 of the Act. 7. The second question is about the deemed vacancy under section 12 of the Act. According to the factual report of the Prescribed Authority the landlord had allowed the accommodation to be occupied by a third person. At the time of the inspection by the Rent Control Inspector the premises were found in occupation and use for advertising business in the name and title of Plain Pack Advertising and Marketing Company. 8-9 employees of this company were found working there According to the information received at the spot Satish Kumar and Smt. Pawan Talwar were the partners with Dr. Beg in this business. A telephone number was also given in the report. Petitioner's learned counsel submits that this telephone was not that of Plain Pack Advertising and Marketing Company and in fact this telephone connection is of the tenant in the ground floor of the building in question. This plea appears to be correct. However, this fact cannot be left unnoticed that no positive case had been taken by Dr. Petitioner's learned counsel submits that this telephone was not that of Plain Pack Advertising and Marketing Company and in fact this telephone connection is of the tenant in the ground floor of the building in question. This plea appears to be correct. However, this fact cannot be left unnoticed that no positive case had been taken by Dr. Nisar Beg in regard to the ownership of this advertising business. The factual position being in his personal knowledge it was required of him to have established by satisfactory material that this business was in his exclusive ownership and he had not allowed the premises to be occupied by any other person either as owner or partner of the said advertising agency business. As would appear from the language of section 12 a landlord of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or part thereof if he has substantially removed his affects therefrom or be has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. When Dr. Nisar Beg did not come forth with any dependable plea and material in support thereof that this business belonged to him exclusively, an adverse inference could justifiably be drawn against him. The Rent Control Inspector found the advertising business being actually run in these premises and 8-9 employees working therein. This clearly made that the business was fairly large having necessary documents as to ownership and other relevant details. Without the supportive documentary material the bald statement of Dr. Nisar Beg as contained in his objection before the Prescribed Authority or revisional court and even before this court that he alone was the owner in possession and after his death the present petitioners are the owners in possession of this advertising business and running, cannot be given any credence. The finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority that this business is not in the exclusive ownership of the landlord and at best it may be a partnership business cannot be said to be based on no evidence or perverse. From the material on record this finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority appears to be well justified. It clearly appears that Dr. Nisar Beg had an opportunity to place his case. From the material on record this finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority appears to be well justified. It clearly appears that Dr. Nisar Beg had an opportunity to place his case. He in fact filed his written objection dated 9-12-83 (Annexure-5) and it is only after its consideration that the impugned order dated 11-7-84 was passed against Dr. Nisar Beg. Section 12 of the Act was, therefore, rightly considered applicable to this case and the impugned orders as to the deemed vacancy of the premises cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality. 8. In the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. -- Petition dismissed.