Judgment : R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of orders dated 13-8-1986, whereby the revision filed by the respondent No. 3, Smt. Janak Dulari Mishra, land-lady against the order dated 6-11-1995 has been allowed and the order dated 7-3-1995 whereby the building in question was declared vacant by the respondent No. 2. 2. BRIEF facts of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of resolving the controversy involved in the case are that on an application filed by respondent No. 3 proceedings under Section 16 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short the Act, were initiated. The Rent Control Inspector after making inspection submitted his report. The case of the respondent No. 3 in brier was that the wife of the petitioner Smt. Ram Rani Devi who was the members of petitioner's family acquired house No. 386/e/2, Panki Gangaganj Scheme; Kanpur. Therefore, the house in dispute which is a residential building shall be deemed to be vacant under the law. Petitioner con tested the said application and filed his affidavit and objection before the respondent No. 2. He has asserted that the building in question was not vacant and the same was in his actual occupation for the last several years. It may be noted that in the said affidavit, the plea of divorce to his wife was not taken. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, filed her affidavit and the affidavit of her witnesses to the effect that the petitioner in the name of his wife acquired house No. 386/e/2, referred to above. The petitioner, hereafter, took the plea that Smt. Ram 3. ani Devi was divorced by him and she was not the member of his family. Therefore, acquisition of the said house by Smt. Ram Rani Devi was of no consequence. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence oral and documentary before the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 held that the petitioner has acquired house No. 386/e/2, Panki Gangaganj Scheme, Part-2, Kanpur possession over which was also delivered to her on 1-10-82, in the name of his wife. The said findings is based on the documentary evidence which consisted of the letters of K. D. A. and agreement entered into between the parties etc. Respondent No. 2 held that the petitioner has acquired house No. 386/e/2, Panki Gangaganj Scheme, Part-2, Kanpur possession over which was also delivered to her on 1-10-82, in the name of his wife. The said findings is based on the documentary evidence which consisted of the letters of K. D. A. and agreement entered into between the parties etc. It was also held that there was no evidence on the record to prove the alleged divorce by the petitioner to his wife. The Prescribed Authority also observed that no custom of divorce was proved and in the Vaish community to which the petitioner belongs there was no such custom of oral divorce. Having recorded the said findings it was held, that the building in question was vacant, in view of the Provisions of Section 12 of the Act, by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 7-8- 95. 3. IT appears that after declaration of vacancy the application of respondent No. 3 landlady, for release of the building was considered by the Prescribed Authority and was rejected vide order dated 6-11-1995. The respondent No. 3, therefore, filed a revision against the order of the Prescribed Authority before the revisional Authority, the respondent No. 1. The revision filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed by respondent No. 1 and the building in question was released in favour of the said respondent by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner therefore, filed the present petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 13-8-86 and 7-8-1995 as stated above. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also carefully perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the findings recorded by the authorities below are per verse and the orders passed by them are wholly illegal and they are liable to be set-aside. It was also contended that from the evidence of the record it was proved that the petitioner had divorced his wife, therefore acquisition of residential house by her was of no consequence. It was also urged that the respondent No. 2 did not record a finding that Smt. Ram Rani Devi was normally residing and was wholly dependent on him. Therefore, Smt. Ram Ram Devi cannot be treated to be the member of petitioner's family. 5. It was also urged that the respondent No. 2 did not record a finding that Smt. Ram Rani Devi was normally residing and was wholly dependent on him. Therefore, Smt. Ram Ram Devi cannot be treated to be the member of petitioner's family. 5. AS stated above in the original Affidavit (Annexure-2) filed by the petitioner he did not take the plea of divorce to his wife. It was only after the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 and evidence of the fact that the petitioner's wife has already acquired house No. 386/e/2, the petitioner took the plea of divorce to his wife. Under Hindu Law Marriage is a sacrament. Originally there was no concept of divorce. It is after enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, the provision of judicial separation has been introduced. For Judicial separation a decree of the competent court is needed admittedly before the Prescribed Authority no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the plea of judicial separation/divorce. The petitioner attempted to say that the divorce was given according to the custom prevalent in the community orally. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 provides as under: "29. Savings (1 ). . . . . . . . (2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right recognised by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu Marriage. Whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act. " 6. PETITIONER, admittedly, belongs to Vaish (Gupta) community. In the said community there is no custom of oral divorce. The petitioner also failed to prove any such custom in the said community, and the in gredients of custom. Except the affidavits there is not an iota of evidence on the record to substantiate the plea of divorce taken by the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority having considered the material on the record disbelieved the plea of oral divorce taken by the petitioner. Section 12 (1) of the Act provides as under: "12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain Cases. . . . . (1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if - (a ). . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . Deemed vacancy of building in certain Cases. . . . . (1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if - (a ). . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . (c) in the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, else where. " In view of the facts found by the Prescribed Authority and aforesaid statutory provisions the building in question was rightly declared vacant. The petitioner in his affidavits did not take the plea that his wife Smt. Ram Rani Devi was not normally residing with and was not wholly dependent on him. There was also no evidence on the record to prove the said fact. The plea of divorce taken by the petitioner having been disbelieved by the Prescribed Authority, there was no occasion not it was required to record a finding that the said wife was residing normally and was dependent on him. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary is not acceptable to me. 7. BEFORE parting with the case it may also be observed that it was on 7-8-1995 that the building in question was declared vacant. The petitioner slept over his rights and did not challenge the validity of the said order till date. The release application of the landlord having been rejected by the Prescribed Authority and she having filed the revision before the Revisional Authority under Section 18 of the Act, the release being a matter between the landlord and the District Magistrate, a tenant who has ceased to occupy or the prospective allottees have no right to intervene in the same. Therefore there was no occasion to the petitioner to wait till the decision of the revision filed by the land-lady and thereafter to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order declaring vacancy. 8. Therefore there was no occasion to the petitioner to wait till the decision of the revision filed by the land-lady and thereafter to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order declaring vacancy. 8. IN my opinion the writ petition filed by the petitioner is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches inasmuch as the same has been filed much after the normal time (90 days) the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are entertained by this court and no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the present petition challenging the validity of the order dated 7-8- 1995 has been offered. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. LASTLY, the learned counsel for the petitioner has offered to submit undertaking to hand over vacant possession of the building in question to the respondent No. 3, if he is granted reasonable time to vacate the building in question. 10. NOBODY has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3. However, under the facts and circumstances of the present case I consider it will meet the ends of justice, if I permit the petitioner to vacate the building in question within a period of 4 months from today, subject to the condition the petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority, the respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today, to the effect that he shall hand over vacant possession of the building in question to the respondent No. 3 immediately on expiry of the aforesaid time and shall also pay the rent/damages of the building in question to her for the period of his occupation. Subject to what has been stated above, the Writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.