JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the sitting tenant and is directed against order dated 6.10.2003 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer / A.C.M. (I) Kanpur Nagar in case No. 24 of 2002, Pramod Kumar Tripathi v. Maya Tripathi. Through the said order shop in dispute situate in house No. 127/411- B, Juhi, Baradevi Kanpur, has been declared to be vacant. Initially one Raman Singh was owner of the premises in dispute who sold the same through registered sale deed dated 3.9.2001 to Shrimati Maya Tripathi, respondent No. 1. Proceedings before Rent Control and Eviction Officer were initiated on the allotment application of respondent No. 2 Pramod Kumar Tripathi. In the allotment application it was stated that petitioner had been let out the shop in dispute in the year 1989 by the previous owner landlord without any allotment order, hence it was vacant. Allotment application was filed in the year 2002 i.e. after about 13 years from the date of letting out. Landlady respondent No. 1 supported the case of applicant for allotment. 2. Through the impugned order Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the shop was quite old and in the year 1988-89 also U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable. Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the shop in dispute to be vacant on the ground that it was let out in 1989 by the then landlord without allotment order. 3. The Supreme Court in Nootan Kumar v. A.D.J., AIR. 2002 SC 3456, has held that an agreement of letting is binding upon the parties, however, it is not binding upon Rent Control Authorities. The Supreme Court in R.K. Parashar v. Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2000 SC 1168 has held that if building is let out by the landlord after July 1976 without allotment order, then it may be deemed to be vacant, however, it can be allotted to the sitting tenant. 4. Under the Rent Control Act if after July 1976 building is let out without allotment order then it may be deemed to be vacant and open to allotment, as the agreement of letting, is not binding upon Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 5. It is also correct that no limitation for initiating proceedings for declaration of deemed vacancy and allotment / release under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act has been provided. 5. It is also correct that no limitation for initiating proceedings for declaration of deemed vacancy and allotment / release under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act has been provided. However, even if no limitation is provided application will have to be filed within reasonable time. This is what has precisely been held by the Supreme Court in Mansha Ram v. S.P. Pathak and others, 1984 (1) ARC 17 : AIR 1983 SC 1239 . In Brij Bala Jain v. Amar Jeet Kaur, 1996 (2) ARC 474 similar view has been taken after following the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court reported in Mansha Ram (supra). In para 11 of Brij Bala Jain’s case (supra) it has been held that in any case 12 years period should be taken as reasonable time for initiating the proceedings under the Statute from the date cause of action arises for taking action......” 6. Accordingly I hold that the proceedings were barred by time. Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned judgment and order declaring the vacancy is set aside. 7. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) A.R.C. 64, that while granting relief to the tenant against eviction in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Accommodation in dispute is a shop situated in Kanpur Nagar. Rent of Rs. 250 per month is quite inadequate. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from January, 2006 onward tenant petitioner shall pay rent to the landlady-respondent No. 1 @ Rs. 750/- per month. Petition Allowed. ————