SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order whereby the disputed accommodation has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 4. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Uma Dutta Pandey, father of petitioner, was tenant of the first floor portion of House No. 112/364-C, Swamp Nagar, Kanpur, of which Smt. Krishna devi. respondent No. 3, is the land-lady. He was transferred from Kanpur to Lucknow in the year 1971. In the year 1976, an application for allotment was filed by respondent No. 4 on the ground that as father of the petitioner had been transferred from Kanpur, the disputed accommodation should be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted the report, stating that Uma Dutta Pandey, father of the petitioner, was transferred from Kanpur in the year 1971, and, on that ground, disputed accommodation be declared as vacant. The Rent Control and eviction Officer on this report declared the accommodation in question as vacant by his order dated 30. 5. 1977. An objection on behalf of Uma Dutta Pandey, father of the petitioner, was filed stating that he had never vacated the accommodation. His eldest son, Rakesh Dutta Pandey, the petitioner, was residing in the disputed accommodation and he was working as a lecturer in economics in a postgraduate college in Kanpur. The landlady submitted a reply and contended that as Uma Dutt Pandey was transferred from Kanpur. it should be deemed as vacant under section 12 (3a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that as the eldest son of the tenant, viz. , the petitioner, was residing in the house, the accommodation it could not be treated as vacant, and recalled the order declaring vacancy passed on 6. 1. 1977. The application filed by the landlady for release of the disputed accommodation was thereafter rejected on 1. 7. 1977. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed revision against the said order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer. 1. 1977. The application filed by the landlady for release of the disputed accommodation was thereafter rejected on 1. 7. 1977. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed revision against the said order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer. The revislonal court allowed the revision and the case was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground that the objection was filed by the petitioner, as the son of the tenant and independently he had no right to file objection and a son of the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on remand of the case, passed order on 16. 12. 1978 declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant. The release application filed by respondent No. 3 was, however, rejected on the ground that she did not require the disputed accommodation bona fide. The petitioner, on coming to know of the order dated 16. 12. 1978, filed application to recall the said order. This application was allowed by the rent Control and Eviction Officer on 16. 8. 1979, holding that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. Respondent No. 4 filed revision against this order. The revislonal court allowed the revision on 10. 8. 1981 taking the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, thereafter, allotted it to respondent No. 4 by his order dated 6. 2. 1984. The petitioner filed a revision against this order. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision by the impugned order dated 17. 5. 1984. ( 4 ) THERE are three questions involved in the case, firstly, whether there was a vacancy of the disputed accommodation after transfer of the father of the petitioner from Kanpur to other place in the year 1971 ; secondly, whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the act and, thirdly, whether the petitioner is entitled for allotment of the premises in question without treating him as an unauthorised occupant. ( 5 ) THE father of the petitioner was, admittedly, the tenant of the disputed premises. He was transferred in the year 1971 from Kanpur to Lucknow. The provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were then not applicable. ( 5 ) THE father of the petitioner was, admittedly, the tenant of the disputed premises. He was transferred in the year 1971 from Kanpur to Lucknow. The provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were then not applicable. By U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, sub-section (3-A) was added in section 12 of the Act, which provided that if the tenant of a residential building, holding a transferable post, under any government or local authority or public sector corporation or under any other employer, has been transferred to some other city, municipal notified area or town area, then such tenant should be deemed to have ceased to occupy such building with effect from the thirtieth day of June following the date of such transfer. This sub-section was not made retrospective in effect. The petitioner on 9. 1. 1979 filed an affidavit before the Rent Control and eviction Officer, stating that after transfer of his father, he is residing in the disputed premises and working as a lecturer in Economics Department of B. S. S. D. College, Kanpur. He had also applied for allotment under the rule 10 (6) of the Rules framed under the Act. It is clear that the petitioner was claiming a right of tenancy and in the alternative for allotment. He was claiming regularisation of his tenancy on the ground that the landlady has been receiving the rent from him fully knowing that his father was transferred and not residing in the disputed premises, and continued to accept the rent from him for more than five years after the transfer of his father. The application for release and allotment were filed only after the U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 came into force which provided that the accommodation can be treated as vacant when the employee is transferred to another city. ( 6 ) IN Ram Chandra Gupta v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1979 ARC 222. wherein the daughter was allotted the premises but after her marriage she left the house and her father continued to reside therein. it was held that the father would be deemed to be residing with the consent of the landlord and the accommodation cannot be treated as vacant under law. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1979 ARC 222. wherein the daughter was allotted the premises but after her marriage she left the house and her father continued to reside therein. it was held that the father would be deemed to be residing with the consent of the landlord and the accommodation cannot be treated as vacant under law. The fact that the rent receipts were issued in name of his daughter could not show that the occupant was not living in the house with the consent of the landlord. !n Meera Paul and others v. IInd adj. Faizabad. 1986 (1) ARC 132, where a tenant was transferred and it was occupied by the tenants sister, an objection was taken that she could not be treated as a family member and the accommodation should be deemed as vacant, but the Court repelled the contention and held that she was residing in the premises within the knowledge of the landlady and as the landlady never objected to her occupation, she was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. In Ram Palat singh v. Kalpa Nath Rai, 1984 (2) ARC 61, the Court held that the mere fact that the occupants possession was without allotment order was not enough to deny the benefit of Section 14 of the act. The consent of the landlady may be expressed or implied. The petitioner was claiming the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. The revisional court by its order dated 10. 8. 1981 held that a person is not entitled to the regularisatlon of tenancy under Section 14 of the Act unless he was a tenant or a licencee. It is not necessary for applicability of Section 14 of the Act that the person in occupation should be a tenant or a licencee from its inception. 8. 1981 held that a person is not entitled to the regularisatlon of tenancy under Section 14 of the Act unless he was a tenant or a licencee. It is not necessary for applicability of Section 14 of the Act that the person in occupation should be a tenant or a licencee from its inception. The occupation of a person may be permissive while he is living as a member of a family but, subsequently, if the tenant is transferred and for a long time his son or a family member continues to occupy the said accommodation and the landlord accepts the rent, the occupation of such person can be treated as that of a tenant and can be regularised under Section 14 of the Act, The tenant after transfer does not pay the rent and the landlord accepts the rent from the occupant with full knowledge of this fact, It will be taken as an implicit consent from the landlord that he accepts the person in occupation as a tenant. ( 7 ) THE petitioner had also filed an application for allotment under Rule 10 (6) of the Rules framed under the Act. His allotment application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant. The petitioner was living as a family member of the tenant and after transfer of his father, he had submitted an application for allotment. Rule 10 (6) (b)provides that in case a residential building under a tenancy of a person, who shall be deemed by dint of Rule 12 (3) to have ceased to occupy by reason of his or any member of his family another building otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or getting vacant any residential building in the same local area. if the District Magistrate is satisfied that the two buildings are occupied by the tenant and a member of his family separately, and that they are separate in messing, the district Magistrate may allot the residential building deemed to be vacant under Section 12 (4)of the Act to the said tenant or to the said member of his family. The same principle can be applied when a building is deemed vacant under Section 12 (3-A) of the Act. The same principle can be applied when a building is deemed vacant under Section 12 (3-A) of the Act. If the accommodation occupied by the petitioner could be treated as a vacant, under Section 12 of the act, his application for allotment could not have been thrown without considering this aspect. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10. 8. 1981, 6. 2. 1984 and 17. 5. 1984 are hereby quashed. The respondent No. 1 shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made above. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. .