Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.: - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 13th March 2009 and 13th January 2010 declaring vacancy. 3. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of a residential premises no.106/262-A (1), Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur consisting of two rooms with other amenities on the ground floor at a rent of Rs.150/- per month. One prospective allottee made an application under Section 13(2) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 on the ground that the said premises was vacant. Upon a report of the Inspector, vacancy was declared vide order dated 3rd of June 2008 where after the landlord also filed an application for release under Section 16(1) (b) of the Act which has been allowed by order dated 13th March 2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision against the said order which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that even though a Government quarter was allotted to him in 2004, it was only temporary allotment and the same has also been cancelled and therefore there was no vacancy. 5. It is admitted to the petitioner that he was an employee of the Industrial Training Institute and on his own application dated 21.1.2004, a Government quarter was allotted to him vide order dated 26.4.2004 passed by the Principal of the Institute and rent was also fixed. On this admitted position, it is apparent that a deemed vacancy arose under Section 12 of the Act. The contention that the petitioner has not removed his effects therefrom, on these facts would be immaterial. However, it is also stated that since the allotment order has been subsequently cancelled and therefore it was temporary allotment and as such there would be no deemed vacancy. He has relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Piyush Narain Dubey vs. Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Allahabad & others (2004 (2) ARC 334) . The facts in the aforesaid case were entirely different, where the tenant had taken up temporary residence but still continued to hold his Lawyer's chamber at his house. He has relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Piyush Narain Dubey vs. Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Allahabad & others (2004 (2) ARC 334) . The facts in the aforesaid case were entirely different, where the tenant had taken up temporary residence but still continued to hold his Lawyer's chamber at his house. In the present case except for the fact that the allotment order mentioned that it was temporary allotment, there is nothing to suggest that it was not an allotment in the regular course of business which could have expired either on the transfer of the petitioner or on his superannuation. Once a Government building had been allotted to the petitioner, it would be a case of deemed vacancy and thereafter re-entry of the petitioner after the alleged cancellation of the allotment, would be against Section 16 of the Act because after vacancy, none can enter into any premises without any order of allotment. 6. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner after obtaining instructions from his client has given a statement that he will vacate the disputed premises within a period of two months and hand over vacant possession to the respondent landlord. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises to the landlord on or before 30th of April 2010. He will also deposit the entire unpaid rent uptil 30th April 2010 before the trial court within a month from today and the said amount shall be paid to the landlord.