JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 16.8.2007 passed by District Supply Officer, Meerut in Case No.1 of 2007 (Annexure 4 to writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess petitioner from premises in dispute. 3. It appears that respondent who is landlord made an application under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that petitioner who was tenant of residential accommodation bearing Municipal No. 5/1 of 2001 (Old) New No.59, Dev Nagar, Mission Compound, Meerut at a monthly rent of Rs.85/- since 1962 of which respondent No.3 is the owner and landlord. The ground taken in the said application was that as petitioner is not residing in the said accommodation and he has substantially removed his affects, therefore, a vacancy should be declared. Rent Control and Eviction Inspector on the direction issued by competent authority has submitted a report that at the time of inspection, it has been found that he is living in the said accommodation. Rent Control and Eviction Officer after perusal of the record has found that certain documents have been filed and electricity bill from 20.4.2007 to 21.6.2007 has been filed which does not indicate that electricity is being consumed continuously. A finding has also been recorded that no bills prior to this date has been submitted. Taking into consideration all these facts, Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 16.8.2007 has declared the vacancy. 4. Sri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for respondent has raised a preliminary objection that present writ petition is not maintainable in view of averment made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, which is being quoted below:- "3. That before giving parawise reply to the writ petition it is pertinent to mention here that the present writ petition has not been filed by Harish Chand Ahuja, rather it has been filed by some imposter to whom the out going tenant wants to tender the possession of the house in dispute. This fact is apparent that in the array of the writ petition the percentage of respondent no.2, has not been mentioned and the father's name of respondent no.3, has been mentioned that Harbans Lal Gupta, while he was the maternal Grand Father, of the respondent No.2 & 3. This fact is apparent that in the array of the writ petition the percentage of respondent no.2, has not been mentioned and the father's name of respondent no.3, has been mentioned that Harbans Lal Gupta, while he was the maternal Grand Father, of the respondent No.2 & 3. Had the writ petition would have been filed by Mr. Ahuja, the percentage must have been correctly mentioned since he was old tenant and aware about the family of the answering respondents. It appears that Mr. Ahuja, after taking money transferred the litigation to some other person. Even he has not filed his affidavit in the writ petition and affidavit of some Satish Kumar Chand has been filed who has alleged himself as the Pairokar of the petitioner." It clearly states that this writ petition has been filed by imposter and not by petitioner himself. The affidavit has been shown by one Anoop Chandra Gupta and in spite of objection raised in the affidavit, same person has filed the affidavit which clearly goes to show that some third person has been given authorization to contest the litigation and there is no denial in the rejoinder affidavit. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner being old person of 74 years and he is confined to bed and he is not in a position to travel and to file an affidavit, therefore, writ petition has been filed through pairokar. This cannot be a ground for dismissal of the writ petition. Further submission has been made that in view of Section 12 of the Act. No.13 of 1972, unless and until three ingredients mentioned therein is satisfied, no declaration of vacancy can be made. It has further been submitted that report of Rent Control and Eviction Officer has been given to this effect that petitioner is living in the said accommodation and he has not removed as substantially effects from the premises in dispute, therefore, there cannot be any vacancy. No objection of the report of the Rent Control Inspector has been filed but in spite of the aforesaid fact, Rent Control and Eviction Officer has declared the vacancy only on the ground that electricity bill prior to 2007 has not been filed. 6. No objection of the report of the Rent Control Inspector has been filed but in spite of the aforesaid fact, Rent Control and Eviction Officer has declared the vacancy only on the ground that electricity bill prior to 2007 has not been filed. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. A specific para was? mentioned in the counter affidavit regarding the fact that writ petition has been filed by an imposter and petitioner is not living in the said accommodation. But in the rejoinder affidavit, there is no denial of this fact. The ground taken that he is an old man, therefore, he is not able to file the affidavit. In my opinion, once this objection has been taken specifically in the counter affidavit, raising a dispute that writ petition is being filed by an imposter then it was the duty of the petitioner to file his rejoinder affidavit or rejoinder affidavit of his son or wife, not doing so, it gives an adverse impression that a third person has been inserted for the purposes of initiation and occupying the premises. As regards the argument raised by petitioner regarding ingredients of Section 12 is concerned, a finding has been recorded that if petitioner is residing in the said accommodation he should have file various documents prior to 2007. Electricity bill prior to 20.4.2007 has not been filed. This gives an impression that petitioner is not residing there and he is living with his son and has install a third person to contest the proceedings and detained the possession of the accommodation. 7. In view of aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is herbey dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. 8. At the last, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the said premises. It is provided that, in case, petitioner moves an application within three weeks supported by an affidavit in the shape of undertaking before the court below specifically mentioned therein that immediately after expiry of period of three months from today, he will vacate the said premises and will handover peaceful possession to respondent-landlord without inducting any third person, then in that case, court below after due satisfaction will grant three months time from today. It is also made clear that petitioner-tenant will pay the rent of three months from today to respondent landlord before vacation of the said premises.