JUDGMENT : - Sudhir Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, dated 2-6-1986 whereby the disputed accommodation was declared vacant and allotted to Gulshan Kumar and the order passed by the revisional authority dated 23-11-1987 affirming the said order in revision. 2. AJAY Kumar, the petitioner claims that he is a tenant of the disputed accommodation. Gulshan Kumar, the bother of the landlady, filed an application for allotment of the said house on the allegation that Lekhraj, father of the petitioner, was tenant and he having constructed his own house, the disputed accommodation be treated as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer asked the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Inspector made spot inspection and submitted the report. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer took the view that Lekhraj having constructed his own house, the accommodation in question shall be treated as vacant and allotted to Gulshan Kumar. The petitioner preferred a revision. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision on the finding that even assuming that the petitioner was tenant but as his father had constructed another house the accommodation shall be treated as vacant. These orders have been challenged in the writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. K. Singh, holding brief of Sri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that Lekhraj is not a tenant but he is a tenant. The revisional Court has taken the view that even though the petitioner may be tenant but as his father had constructed a house, the accommodation shall be treated as vacant relying upon Section 12 (3) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (in short the Act ). Section 12 (3) of the Act provides that in a case of residential building if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquire in a vacant state or gets vacated residential building in the same city, Municipality, Notified Area or Town Area in which the building under the tenancy is situate, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy building under his tenancy. Explanation (b) to this sub-section provides that the expression "any member of family" in relation to the tenant shall not include the person who is neither being normally residing with him nor is wholly de pendent on such tenant. The revisional Court has not recorded any finding that his father was normally residing with him or was wholly dependent on him. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner was not tenant but his father was a tenant. In this respect no categorical finding has been recorded by the authorities. 5. IN view of the above the writ petition is allowed and the order declaring vacancy is hereby quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall record a fresh finding on the question as to (i) who is the tenant of the disputed premises and (ii) If Lekhraj was tenant, whether the accommodation shall be treated as vacant under Section 12 (3) of the Act read with explanation (b) under the said sub-section. As the matter is old, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide the matter within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity to the petitioner, Lekhraj, Gulshan Kumar-respondent No. 3 and the landlady respondent No. 4. 6. THE parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.