JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent caveator. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 22.2.2010 by which the revision of the petitioner challenging vacancy and release order has been dismissed. 3. It appears that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed accommodation and upon his wife purchasing a house in the same area and having obtained vacant possession, an application was moved where vacancy was declared and subsequently it was released in favour of the landlord. The resultant revision by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the court below did not consider the fact that he had already divorced his wife in 1985 and therefore her purchasing a house would not render the disputed accommodation vacant. 5. Both the courts below have considered all the evidence on record, specially the ages of the sons of the petitioner and have found that they were born after the alleged divorce and further relying upon other documentary evidence, have rejected the argument. The finding is based on the evidence on record which has not been shown to be perverse. 6. It is then urged that since the wife had allegedly bought the house in 1999 and the application was moved after 12 years, vacancy could not be declared and he has relied upon a single Judge decision of this Court rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Dixit vs. Smt. Maya Tripathi & another ( 2006 (1) AWC 649 ). In Dixit's case, the facts were entirely different where an unauthorised occupant continued for 12 years whereafter an application of vacancy was filed. In the present case, the tenant had acquired a premises in vacant state and it would be a case of deemed vacancy since the time the alternative accommodation was acquired and therefore, the ratio would not apply in the present facts of the case. 7. No other point has been urged. 8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 9. 7. No other point has been urged. 8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 9. After the judgment had been dictated learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of his client, has given an undertaking that he would vacate the disputed premises within a reasonable time fixed by this Court and also deposit the rent thereof. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent landlord on or before 18.6.2010 and till then he shall not be evicted. The petitioner shall also deposit the entire rent uptil 18.6.2010 with the court below within a period of three weeks from today and the said amount shall be released in favour of the landlord. In case of default in payment of rent, he shall be liable for eviction forthwith.