O. P. GARG, J. The dispute relates to a shop and other appendages in premises No. 51/49 (New No. 51/88) Nayagang, Kanpur. The petitioner Mahendra Kumar Rastogi moved an application for allotment of the said shop on the ground that a deemed vacancy has arisen under Section 12 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on account of constitution of new partnership firm in which Smt. Padmawati and Smt. Sadhna daughter-in-laws of original partner of Mathura Dass have been admitted as partners and some other partners have been substituted. By order dated 28-9-1998 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer refused to declare the vacancy. The petitioner moved an application for review which was registered as Case No. 73 of 1998. With a view to expedite the hearing of the review petition, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 33870 of 1998 which was disposed of by this Court on 24-10-1998 with the observation that Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide the review application with expedition according to law preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order was produced before him. By order dated 1-11-1999 the review petition has been dismissed and the order of non-declaration of vacancy dated 28-9-1998 has been maintained. 2. By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is applicant for allotment has challenged the order dated 28-9-1998 and 1-11-1999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and has prayed for quashing the said orders and for a direction to him to proceed with the case for allotment or the release of the premises in question after declaring it vacant. 3. A counter-affidavit of Mathura Dass, respondent No. 7, has been brought on record. 4. Heard Sri A. N. Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. N. Khare on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 5. Sri Sinha urged that the tenanted accommodation was originally allotted to a partnership firm-Gopal Dass Bhittal Dass by order dated 30-3-1959, of which Ramadhin, his son Gokul Dass, Smt. Agna Devi and her minor sons Mathura Dass and Bhittal Dass were the partners. 2 to 7. 5. Sri Sinha urged that the tenanted accommodation was originally allotted to a partnership firm-Gopal Dass Bhittal Dass by order dated 30-3-1959, of which Ramadhin, his son Gokul Dass, Smt. Agna Devi and her minor sons Mathura Dass and Bhittal Dass were the partners. The firm was dissolved in the year 1973 and two new firms were constituted, viz. M/s Gokul Dass-Mohan Dass in which Ramadhin and his three sons Gokul Dass, Mohan Dass and Ratan Dass become partners. Mohan Dass and Ratan Dass were added as new partners. The other firm was M/s Mohan Dass-Bhittal Dass of which Mathura Dass and Bhittal Dass were the partners. Smt. Agna Devi who was originally partner of the firm though alive has been excluded. In the year 1991, a new firm under the name and style of M/s. Gobardhan Traders come into existence, of which Pankaj and Piyush sons of Mathura Dass, Padmawati wife of Mathura Dass and Smt. Sadhna w/o Padam Kumar (daughter-in-law of Mathura Dass) became partners. 6. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has held that no vacancy had occurred as M/s Gobardhan Traders has been in existence since before 1976 and Smt. Sadhna Gupta, daughter-in-law of Mathura Dass was the legal occupant. Review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected holding that the tenancy of Smt. Agna Devi was inherited by grand-son Padum Kumar. This observation is patently wrong in view of the fact that since Smt. Agna Devi is still alive. The question of inheritance of her tenancy rights by Padam Kumar did not arise. A wrong view of the matter was also taken that Padam Kumar grand-son of Smt. Aga Devi is entitled to have his wife Smt. Sadhna as a partner. 7. Sri A. N. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner painstakingly urged that the original impugned order dated 28-9- 1998 and the subsequent order rejecting the review petition on 1- 11-1999 are legally not sustainable and a deemed vacancy has arisen in view of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act inasmuch as Smt. Sadhna Gupta daughter-in-law of Mathura Dass and Smt. Padmawati daughter-in-law of Smt. Agna Devi who are not the members of the family of the tenant have been illegally inducted as partners. In support of his contention Sri Sinha placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ganpat Roy v. Additional District Magistrate and others, 1985 (2) ARC 73, in which analysing the provisions of Section 3 (g) defining the expression "family" it was observed that what is pertinent to note about this definition is that a son-in-law and a daughter-in-law are not expressly included in the definition of the term `family. In an earlier decision of Ram Nath Yadavv. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and others, 1994 (2) ARC page 1, it was held that the expression "family" used in Section 12 (1) (b) and Section 12 (2) of the Act has to be given as defined in Section 3 (g) of the Act. In that case the landlord raised the controversy mainly on the ground that one Smt. Manju Gupta was not a member of family as the definition under Section 3 (g) of the Act and thus her induction as partner in the partnership firm M/s. Har Vilas Prabhu Dayal would amount to admitting a person who is not a member of family of the tenant as a partner and thus the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building in view of the specific provision of Section 12 (2) of the Act. It was further observed that insofar as non-residential buildings are concerned, she can have no legal rights as her right was only limited to maintenance by the father-in-law and thus while defining "family" insofar as non-residential buildings are concerned, she has not been rightly included. 8. A reference was also made to oft-quoted decision of the apex Court in case of Harish Tandonv. Dist. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad U. P. and others, 1995 (1) ARC 220, in which it was held (in paragraph 9) that it cannot be disputed that a son-in-law shall not be deemed to be a member of family within the definition as given in the Act under Section 3 (g ). Section 12 (2) says that in case of non- residential building where tenant admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. In that case Swarup Kailash, son-in-law of Ganpat Roy was inducted as partner in the firm. Section 12 (2) says that in case of non- residential building where tenant admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. In that case Swarup Kailash, son-in-law of Ganpat Roy was inducted as partner in the firm. It was held that a deemed vacancy in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 as occurred. 9. In the instant case the position as it emerges from the undisputed facts is that Smt. Agna Devi, her sons Mathura Dass and Bhittal Das have been ousted from the newly constituted existing firm M/s. Goverdhan Traders. The said firm is now in the control and possession of Pankaj, Piyush sons of Mathura Dass and grand-sons of Smt. Agna Devi and Smt. Padmawati daughter-in-law of Smt. Agna Devi and Smt. Sadhna daughter-in-law of Mathura Dass, Smt. Agna Devi and Mathura Dass and Bhittal Das who are alive have no concern with the firm businesses. An inspiration may be drawn from another decision of the apex Court in Mohammed Kasam Haji Gulambhaiv. Bakerali Fatehali, AIR 1998 SC 3214 . In that case, the premises in question which was a shop was let out to the tenant who had entered into a partnership with his four sons for carrying on business. Under the new partnership it was the sons of the tenant- father who were in complete control of the suit premises and were exercising exclusive possession for the same to the exclusion of the tenant- father. He could not exercise his rights over the shop premises. He had handed over the shop premises to his sons who were exercising their independent right over the same and conducting their business thereat. It was held that since the tenant-father had completely divested himself of the suit premises as well as business, the landlord was, therefore, entitled to a decree for eviction. 10. By enacting Section 12 of the Act, the Legislature has laid down that a building shall be deemed to be vacant if either of the contingencies as mentioned therein exist. It was held that since the tenant-father had completely divested himself of the suit premises as well as business, the landlord was, therefore, entitled to a decree for eviction. 10. By enacting Section 12 of the Act, the Legislature has laid down that a building shall be deemed to be vacant if either of the contingencies as mentioned therein exist. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act provides that if a tenant carrying on business in a non-residential building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have eased to occupy the building. 11. In view of the above legal position, a deemed vacancy has arisen on account of induction of the new persons particularly those who are not the family members of the original partners and, therefore, they shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the shop. 12. The view taken by Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not only against the law but perverse. It cannot be upheld. 13. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order 28-9-1999 refusing to declare the vacancy and subsequent order dated 1-11- 1999 rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded for decision afresh by Rent Control and Eviction Officer according to law. The application of the petitioner for allotment of the shop alongwith others, if any, shall be considered after observing the procedure prescribed by law. Petition allowed. .