JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. By means of this petition, Petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 16-12-1981 passed by Respondent No. 1 declaring thereby the accommodation-43, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, vacant under the provisions of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present dispute are that one N.K. Bajpayee, Respondent No. 3, moved an application on 5-6-1981 (registered as case No. 528 of 1981) for allotment of the accommodation stating that Shri Gautam Mathur who was occupying the accommodation in dispute has vacated the same on 4-6-1981 and thus the vacancy has occurred and the accommodation may be allotted in his favour. On this application Rent Control Inspector was deputed to make a local inspection and to submit his report. The inspector concerned after inspecting the building-43, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad submitted his report on 11-6-1981 and stated therein that the aforesaid accommodation has been vacated by Sri Gautam Mathur, a visiting professor of Allahabad University. It has also been mentioned in the report that Shri Gautam Mathur has shifted to Delhi with his family about a month back and has started residing in his own house No. C-1, Gul Mohar Park, New Delhi. It will be proper to clarify here that the aforesaid building has two parts; the northern part is occupied by Sri P.B. Chaudhary as tenant and the present dispute is confined to the southern part of the building. In the inspection report the total accommodation in dispute has also been described according to which there are total nine rooms of different size including one in the first floor besides there being kitchen, two bath rooms and two latrines, varandah, court yard, portico and a lawn. On the basis of this report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy and directed to issue an intimation to the landlord, i.e. Petitioner. 3. On receipt of the notice, Petitioner put in his appearance and filed his objection supported by an affidavit wherein he stated that he is owner-landlord of building no 10/43, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, which is his permanent residential building. As he was presently posted at Delhi in connection with his employment as Manager (Tubes) in Indian Oil Corporation, the accommodation in dispute, i.e. southern portion was looked after by his tenant Shri Pratap Bahadur Chaudhary. As he was presently posted at Delhi in connection with his employment as Manager (Tubes) in Indian Oil Corporation, the accommodation in dispute, i.e. southern portion was looked after by his tenant Shri Pratap Bahadur Chaudhary. The two portions are separated by a wall However, the accommodation on the southern side which is the major portion was never let out to any one and it throughout continued in his occupation and is fully furnished with house hold goods and furniture etc. In the absence of the Petitioner it was looked after by Mali cum-Chaukidar, namely Sheo Mangal and also by his tenant Pratap Bahadur Chaudhary with whom he has very cordial relations. It was also stated that at times Sri P.B. Chaudhary used the gallary and the room adjacent to it for accommodating his relatives whenever they visited him which was done without consent of the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner considering the cordial relations did not object to this temporary occupation. Shri Gautam Mathur who is nephew of Sri P.B. Chaudhary was allowed to occupy a few rooms without the consent of the Petitioner. However, he was neither tenant of the Petitioner nor that of Sri Chaudhary. He was only allowed to occupy the accommodation by Sri Chaudhary as he used to do in case of his sons and daughters visiting him. The accommodation was never vacant in fact or in law. The Petitioner further stated that he does not want to let out any part of the southern portion of the building which is in his occupation that he was not given any intimation by the Rent Control Inspector before making inspection though his address was fully known to him. 4. Both the parties were allowed to adduce evidence by means of affidavits. Sri Gautam Mathur also filed his affidavit which is annexure IV to the writ petition. 4. Both the parties were allowed to adduce evidence by means of affidavits. Sri Gautam Mathur also filed his affidavit which is annexure IV to the writ petition. In this affidavit he has stated that Sri P.B. Chaudhary is his uncle and during his brief stay at Allahabad as visiting professor his uncle had permitted him and his family to stay temporarily in a few rooms at 10, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, that after a brief stay he came back to Delhi and no longer residing in the rooms in dispute; that he was not tenant of either Shri P.B. Chaudhary or of the landlord nor he ever paid any rent to either of them for staying in the building. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 16-12-1981, however, again determined that the accommodation in dispute is vacant and notified the same for allotment. Aggrieved by this order the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Initially this petition was filed only against the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad. However, Respondent No. 2 Dr. Sheo Ratan Singh, made an application for impleadment which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 9-2-1990 and he was impleaded as Respondent No. 2. It appears that during pendency of this writ petition an application was made by Respondent No. 2 (Registered as Case No. 109 of 1989) for allotment of the accommodation in dispute in his favour on this application a fresh report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector. The report was submitted on 9-6-1989. This report has been filed as Annexure CA I to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2. On the basis of this report by order dated 10-8-1989 the accommodation in dispute was again notified as vacant by Respondent No. I. However subsequently an objection was filed by the Petitioner and attention of Respondent No. 1 was invited towards the order dated 6-1-1982 passed in the present writ petition by which the proceedings for allotment were stayed and the Respondent No. 1 stayed the proceedings. This subsequent development is not very relevant for the present controversy. The fact have been stated for sake of clarity and also to appreciate the interest of Respondent No. 2 in the controversy which is subject matter of the present writ petition. 6. This subsequent development is not very relevant for the present controversy. The fact have been stated for sake of clarity and also to appreciate the interest of Respondent No. 2 in the controversy which is subject matter of the present writ petition. 6. During hearing of the present writ petition it was noticed that Sri Narendra Kumar Bajpayee on whose application the vacancy was declared by the impugned order was not impleaded as Respondent in the writ petition. On noticing this, Petitioner was directed to implead Narendra Kumar Bajpayee as Respondent No. 3 and after impleadment Respondent No. 3 was directed to be served personally by Petitioner and also through office. However, it appears that Respondent No. 3 having been transferred to Lucknow has lost interest in the present proceedings. In spite of service he has neither put in appearance nor filed any affidavit in opposition of claim of Petitioner. 7. I have heard Sri K.M. Dayal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Petitioner, and Sri M.S. Negi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and I have perused the record. Shri Dayal has questioned the legality of the impugned order on various grounds. 8. It has been submitted that no notice was served on Petitioner under Rule 8 before making local inspection though his address was known and thus the report of the Rent Control Inspector was illegal and void and on the basis of the same the accommodation in dispute could not be notified as vacant. It has been further submitted that as the accommodation was locked and could not be inspected, the Rent Control Inspector could not mention the various household articles and other goods lying therein and it could not be said on the basis of this report that Petitioner has substantially removed his effects from the accommodation in dispute. No reliance could be placed on such a report It has been further contended by Sri Dayal that Shri Gautam Mathur was not allowed by the Petitioner to occupy the accommodation in dispute. He was inducted by his own uncle Sri P.B. Chaudhary who was tenant in another portion and he could not be deemed to be tenant or licensee of the Petitioner. There is no positive evidence of any sub-letting. The Petitioner could not be bound by action of his care-taker who was not given any authority to let out the accommodation in dispute. There is no positive evidence of any sub-letting. The Petitioner could not be bound by action of his care-taker who was not given any authority to let out the accommodation in dispute. It has also been contended that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 10(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules; consent of Petitioner is necessary and as he specifically stated in his affidavit that he does not want to let out the accommodation in dispute, the Respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to take further proceedings for allotment and the impugned order is illegal and without authority. Sri Dayal in support of his aforesaid contentions relied on a number of decisions of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court which shall be referred to and discussed at the relevant places. 9. Shri M.S. Negi, on the other hand, has submitted that as Shri P.B. Chaudhary was acting as caretaker, he was admittedly authorised to let out or accommodate Shri Gautam Mathur as licensee of the building in dispute in his capacity as caretaker. He has referred to paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition and also to paras 6 and 12 of the affidavit of Petitioner filed before the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure I to the writ petition). Shri Negi has further submitted that Section 2-A of the Act contains special provisions regulating short time licence. The consent of the landlord mentioned in Section 2A(4) of the Act is required, at the time of making allotment and not for ascertaining vacancy. It has been further submitted that as no intimation was sent to the Collector as contemplated u/s 2A of the Act, the consent of the Petitioner is not necessary. Shri Gautam Mathur was the licensee and he was inducted as such with full authority. No action was taken by the Petitioner to evict him. The impugned order cannot be challenged on ground of noncompliance of Rule 8 as after filing objection, Petitioner has been given full opportunity to present his case and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the legality of the order has not been questioned on the ground of abolition of Rule 8 in the writ petition. For this reason also the Petitioner is not entitled to raise this ground at this stage. Further, the legality of the order has not been questioned on the ground of abolition of Rule 8 in the writ petition. For this reason also the Petitioner is not entitled to raise this ground at this stage. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is concluded by findings of fact and the inference drawn by him that Gautam Mathur was tenant are based on relevant considerations, namely that Shri Gautam Mathur had his own independent telephone and resided in the accommodation in dispute for about four years with his family without any objection raised by the Petitioner. 10. Sri K.M. Dayal in rejoinder has reiterated his submissions made earlier and has further submitted that acquiescence or silence on the part of the Petitioner could not status of tenant on Gautam Mathur and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has committed a manifest illegality in drawing such an inference. The vacancy could be challenged by the Petitioner which has been illegally determined by the Respondent No. 1 in violation of Rule 8. The possession of the licensee will be the owner and the accommodation in dispute could not be found to be vacant. 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has committed manifest illegality in not adverting himself to the question as to whether Shri Gautam Mathur was inducted in the accommodation in dispute by Petitioner or by his uncle Shri P.B. Chaudhary. It cannot be denied that the question of vacancy being a jurisdictional fact must be ascertained strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rule. A Division Bench of this Court in case Maharaj Kumari Vimla Devi v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mussooree, (1983) 2 ARC 225, has held that occupation of some persons without consent of the landlord will be of no consequence. The Petitioner in his affidavit filed before the Respondent No. 1 specifically stated that Shri Gautam Mathur was nephew of Sri P.B. Chaudhary and he was in fact inducted by Sri Chaudhary without consent of the Petitioner. Shri Gautam Mathur in his affidavit also stated the same fact that he was allowed to occupy a few rooms by Shri Chaudhary during his stay at Allahabad as Visiting Professor of Allahabad University. Shri Gautam Mathur in his affidavit also stated the same fact that he was allowed to occupy a few rooms by Shri Chaudhary during his stay at Allahabad as Visiting Professor of Allahabad University. In these facts and circumstances it was obligatory on Respondent No. 1 to determine as a fact as to at whose instance Shri Gautam Mathur occupied the accommodation in dispute. If he was allowed to stay in the accommodation by Shri Chaudhary and he continued there under the same authority, the origin of his possession was through Shri Chaudhary either as tenant or as licensee. His possession could not be through Petitioner. There is no material on record to suggest that at any point of time the Petitioner ratified the act of Shri Chaudhary in permitting Shri Gautam Mathur to occupy the accommodation in dispute. If possession of Gautam Mathur was not through the Petitioner, his vacating the accommodation in dispute subsequently could not give jurisdiction to the Rent Control authorities to deem the same as vacant and open for allotment. In my opinion, the Respondent No. 1 has committed a serious omission in this respect. 12. The second important aspect of the case is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has failed to record any finding about the extent of the actual accommodation occupied by Shri Gautam Mathur. The Petitioner as well as Gautam Mathur in their affidavits have staled that Gautam Mathur occupied few rooms. Shri K.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for Petitioner, though contended that possession was confined to gallery and one room but I am not convinced with the submissions. The Petitioner as well as Gautam Mathur could not muster up courage to specify the extent of the actual accommodation in possession of Gautam Mathur. The Rent Control Inspector in his report dated 11-6-1981 mentioned the extent of the accommodation in dispute. According to this report there are nine rooms, besides kitchen, bath-room, latrines etc. Respondent No. 2 in his counter affidavit in paragraph 11 has stated that Shri Gautam Mathur occupied five rooms. The jurisdiction of the Rent Control authorities could be confined only to the extent of actual accommodation in possession of Shri Gautam Mathur. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was thus under obligation to ascertain the exact accommodation in possession of Shri Gautam Mathur. 13. The jurisdiction of the Rent Control authorities could be confined only to the extent of actual accommodation in possession of Shri Gautam Mathur. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was thus under obligation to ascertain the exact accommodation in possession of Shri Gautam Mathur. 13. Sri K.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for Petitioner, cited many authorities dealing with the question of removal of the household effects substantially. In my opinion, I need not discuss all those authorities for the simple reason that in the resent case the vacancy has been alleged on account of vacating the accommodation in dispute by Shri Gautam Mathur which is not disputed even by the Petitioner. It would be a different matter that possession of Gautam Mathur may or may not have been at the instance of Petitioner. So far the removal of the household effects substantially by Shri Gautam Mathur is concerned, it is not in dispute. If the Petitioner is able to establish that Shri Gautam Mathur was not inducted by him nor he ever ratified the action of Sari P.B. Chaudhary in inducting him in the accommodation in dispute, the accommodation in dispute shall fall in category of such accommodation which was not let out ever before and the Rent Control and Eviction authorities shall cease to have jurisdiction to deal with the allotment of the same until it is thrown open to allotment by the Petitioner by giving specific or implied consent as contemplated under Rule 10 of the Rules. 14. Shri Dayal has further contended that consent of the Petitioner is necessary for giving jurisdiction to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to initiate allotment proceedings. Shri Negi, learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand, submitted that question of consent will be relevant only at the time of actual allotment. In my opinion, the proceedings for ascertaining vacancy are part of the proceedings for allotment and in case the consent of the landlord or owner of the building is actual required for allotment, it would be futile exercise to ascertain in the vacancy and to wait for obtaining consent of the landlord until the proceedings became ripe for passing the actual order of allotment in favour of any body. The consent of the landlord is required u/s 2-A(4) of the Act in case the building was given on short-term licence and further under Rule 10(9) of the Rules in case the building was never let out before. In the present case the building was not given under short term licence contemplated u/s 2-A of the Act nor it was under the intimation or order of the Collector. Sub-section (4) of Section 2-A cannot be attracted. The licence u/s 2-A could not be for more than six months in any case. The consent contemplated under Rule 10(9) of the rules will be required only in case the building was never let out before. In the facts of the present case, if after consideration the Rent Control and Eviction Officer comes to the conclusion that the building was let out by Petitioner to Shri Gautam Mathur, there will be no question of obtaining further consent of the Petitioner. However, on the other hand, if the Rent Control and Eviction Officer comes to the conclusion Shri Gautam Mathur was inducted in the building by Shri P.B. Chaudhary and not by the Petitioner, Petitioner's right not to throw the building open for letting will not be affected. 15. The contention of Sri Dayal regarding violation of Rule 8 is also not acceptable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It cannot be denied that Shri Gautam Mathur actually vacated the accommodation in his possession long back. Further, the Petitioner got full opportunity to contest his objection against vacancy. Thus the fact that the period was not indicated at the time of inspection of the building loses its relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, it shall be open to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to have a fresh inspection made either by himself or through any other officer deputed by him to ascertain the correct facts. Shri Negi, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submitted that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is concluded by findings of fact and inferences drawn by him are based on relevant considerations. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer disposed of the matter by a very sketchy and short order. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer disposed of the matter by a very sketchy and short order. It cannot be disputed that Respondent No. 1 was deciding a question affecting very valuable rights of the parties. The Respondent No. 1 has only mentioned the various affidavits filed by the parties in his order without disclosing the averments made therein. Such a course cannot he approved. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer ought to have discussed the evidence of the parties, if not in detail like a civil court, at least in such a manner which may show that he applied his mind to the contents of the various affidavits filed by the parties and the contentions advanced. The telephone number and length of possession could be relevant facts but these two facts could not be conclusive to draw an inference that Shri Gautam Mathur was residing as tenant of the Petitioner. There is no material on record to show that Shri Gautam Mathur paid any rent to the Petitioner. 16. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16-12-1981 passed by the Respondent No. 1, Annexure V to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall pass a fresh order determining the vacancy in the light of the observations made above after hearing the parties and permitting them opportunity to adduce evidence. As this matter is pending since 1981, the Respondent No. 1 is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. There will be no order as to costs.