JUDGMENT M.P.Singh, J. 1. This present writ petition is directed against an order declaring vacancy of house no. 105/549-A Kanpur. The petitioner was the tenant. 2. The case set up by the petitioner was that he was a tenant of two room accommodation since 1947. It was situated in a Muslim locality and there were communal disturbances in Kanpur in the year 1989-90. In addition to this the petitioner had been ailing for the last 3 or 4 years. He was getting treatment in J. K. Institute of Cardiology. On account of these two factors the petitioner decided to move out of Kanpur for a short period. He accordingly moved an application before the District Magistrate under section 2-A of the U. P. Act No. Xiii of 1972 for granting a short term licence to Mustaq Ahmad s/o Sri Nasiruddin. The same day an application was filed by the opposite party no. 2 for allotment of accommodation on the ground that there was a deemed vacancy as the petitioner has permitted one Wilayatuilah Khan to occupy the premises. 3. The Rent Control Inspector was directed to make enquiry. He submitted his report on 25-8-1990, He found the petitioner to be in occupation of the premises. The Additional District Magistrate who was functioning as Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on 28-1-1991 holding that the house was not legally vacant. 4. A fresh application was filed on 8-2-1991 by the respondent no. 2 that now the said house has become vacant. It may be allotted to him. The Rent Control Inspector was directed to make fresh enquiry. He submitted his report on 15-2-1991 in accordance with Rule 8 (2) of the rule framed under the Act. The Inspector found that the previous tenant Narain Das (Petitioner) has permitted Mustaq Ahmad and Wilayatuilah Khan, unauthorised occupants to occupy the portion which was in his possession. The ground floor was occupied by Mustaq Ahmad and the first floor by Wilayatullah Khan, After getting the report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on 10-10-1991 declaring vacancy. The present writ petition has been filed against the said order. 5. The ground floor was occupied by Mustaq Ahmad and the first floor by Wilayatullah Khan, After getting the report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on 10-10-1991 declaring vacancy. The present writ petition has been filed against the said order. 5. The first submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the petitioner has already moved application under section 2-A of the Act on 7-2-1991 praying that Mustaq Ahmad may be permitted to stay for a short while in the said accommodation, unless it was finally disposed of, vacancy could not be declared. 6. Section 2-A of the Act is a special provision for short-term licence. Under this provision a person occupying a building as owner or as a tenant or in any capacity may permit any other person to occupy for purely temporary residential purposes for a period not exceeding three months without any order of allotment under section 16 of the Act. Whenever such a contingency arises then under the provision of the said section the intimation is to be given to the District Magistrate jointly (emphasis supplied) by the licensor and licensee within one month from the date of occupation of the building. Admittedly in this case there was no joint intimation. It was only an intimation by the tenant to the District Magistrate, if there was any. So the intimation sent by the tenant was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Obviously this rendered the occupation of the licensee as unauthorised. 7. Moreover the said defective application is said to have been sent by the tenant to the District Magistrate on 7-2-1991. After the expiry of three months its life came to an end automatically. There was neither any order passed by the District Magistrate nor there was any . extension which . could be done by him for maximum period of six months in aggregate. Even this maximum period had expired. The vacancy was declared on 10-10- 1991- On that date no proceeding under section 2-A of the Act was pending in the eyes of law. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the provisions of section 2-A of the Act. 8. could be done by him for maximum period of six months in aggregate. Even this maximum period had expired. The vacancy was declared on 10-10- 1991- On that date no proceeding under section 2-A of the Act was pending in the eyes of law. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the provisions of section 2-A of the Act. 8. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there was no compliance of rule 8 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act Rule 8 of the Rules deals with ascertainment of vacancy and runs as follows. "8. Ascertainment of vacancy-(1) The District Magistrate, shall, before making any order of allotment or release in respect of any building which is alleged to be vacant under section 12 or to be otherwise vacant or to be likely to fall vacant, get the same inspected. (2) The inspection of the building, so far possible, shall be made in the presence of the landlord and the tenant or any other occupant The facts mentioned in the report should wherever practicable, be elicited from at least two respectable persons in the locality and the conclusion of the inspectio. alias report shall be pasted on the notice board of the office of the District under Magistrate for the information of the general public, and an order of allot- \al ment may be passed not before the expiration of three days from the date of such posting, and if in the mean time any objection is received, not before the disposal of such objection. (3) Any objection under sub-rule (2) shall be decided after consideration of any evidence that the objector or any other person concerned may adduce." According to the language of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules the Rent Control Inspector is to inspect the building so far possible in presence of the landlord and the tenant or any other occupant. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was given to him and the inspection was not made in his presence. 9. Admittedly in this case the petitioner, who was a tenant, has handed over the possession to Mustaq Ahmad and Wilayatuilah Khan. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was given to him and the inspection was not made in his presence. 9. Admittedly in this case the petitioner, who was a tenant, has handed over the possession to Mustaq Ahmad and Wilayatuilah Khan. He himself has moved an application under section 2-A of the Act that on account of communal disturbances and other reasons he is shifting to another place without giving his new address. Under these circumstances it was not possible for the Rent Control Inspector to send any notice to the petitioner. Notices were issued to both the occupants Mustaq Ahmad and Wilayatuilah Khan. 10. The inspection was done in presence of both the occupants as well as the landlord. The phrase "so far possible" appearing in the context of this rule suggests that the Rent Control Inspector should be fair in the procedure adopted by him in issuing notices to the tenant and occupant but it does not mean that in a case where the tenant has already handed over possession to other occupant and his whereabouts are not known even then he may do the exercise in futility. Under the circumstances of the present case there was nothing wrong in not issuing notice to the tenant. Accordingly I am of the view that Rule 8 (2) has been complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision Bhagwan Sahai Saxena v. IV Additional District Judge, 1987 (1) ARC 398. In that case the tenant was in occupation of the building but no notice was served on him. 11. Another case referred to by him is Achal Singh, v, III Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur, 1987 (2) ARC 88. In that case the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 was not complied with. In that case the tenant was in occupation of the building but no notice was served on him. 11. Another case referred to by him is Achal Singh, v, III Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur, 1987 (2) ARC 88. In that case the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 was not complied with. The report was not pasted on the notice board The court found further irregularities in as much as-(a) notice of the inspection of the premises was not given to the landlord as required under the law (b) inspection of the premises was caused in the absence of the landlord (c) no effort was made to find out who the landlord was (d) an intimation given by an anonymous person that the landlord was one Mahendra Singh Bagga was accepted without verification (e) vacancy was pre supposed without investigation whether the tenancy had been determined, and (f) the inspection note does not record or bear out that at the time of inspection the facts were elicited from atleast two respectable persons of the locality. None of these points are attracted in the instant case. 12. Another case referred to by the learned counsel is reported in the same volume at page 108 Smt. Kanta Gupta v. VIII Addl. District Judge, Meerut and others. In that case neither the notice was served on the landlord nor inspection was done in his presence. Even two respectable persons of the locality were not present at the time of inspection. The inspection note was not pasted on the notice board. The cases referred to by the learned counsel are not at all relevant to the controversy in hand in as much as in the instant case notices were served on the occupants who have been unauthorisedly permitted to occupy the premises by the tenant who has shifted to some other unknown accommodation- Under these circumstances it was not necessary for the Rent Control Inspector to serve the notice on the tenant who was no more in possession of the building 13. Rule 8 has been framed with a definite purpose for ascertaining the vacancy. The Rent Control Inspector has done the necessary physical verification on the spot in the presence of the landlord and the persons occupying the premises. Rule 8 has been framed with a definite purpose for ascertaining the vacancy. The Rent Control Inspector has done the necessary physical verification on the spot in the presence of the landlord and the persons occupying the premises. In order to comply with the provisions of the rule, prior intimation of the inspection has been given to the landlord and the persons in occupation. The inspection was done in their presence. 14. In view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs I am of the view that it was not necessary for the Rent Control Inspector to serve the notice of inspection on the tenant who has already left the occupation. The last submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Rent Control Inspector could not review the earlier report. In support of his contention he has relied upon a case Ram Naram v. Ramakant Awasthi, 1978 ARC 246, and Rai Chand v. District Judge Mirzapur, 1981 UPRCC 589. The proposition of law is not in dispute but in the instant case there was no question of review. On fresh facts another report was submitted and it was found that the tenant has vacated the premises and permitted a stranger to occupy the same. This was not a case of review. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel is of no consequence 15. AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record I am satisfied that the Impugned order does dot suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The writ petition has got no force and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. 8. Under these circumstances, considering welfare of the children, it is better that they are permitted to remain with the mother. The appeal accordingly lacks merit and is dismissed summarily. Appeal dismissed.