Dilip Gupta, J.:- This petition, at the instance of the tenants, has been filed for quashing the order dated 13th February, 2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority by Which vacancy of the Premises has been declared under section 12 Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act'). 2. An application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act was filed by Anil Kumar Seth-respondent No. 1 (landlord) for release of the building in his favour. It was inter alia alleged that he had purchased House No. CK-18/24, Thatheri Bazar, Varanasi from the erstwhile owner Ganesh Singh by the reg­istered sale-deed dated 26th May, 2009; that on the ground floor of the said house, Radhey lal was the tenant of one shop and after his death on 3rd April, 2000, his daughter Geeta Devi became the tenant; that the possession of the en­tire house, except that shop of which Radhey lal was a tenant, was given to the applicant at the time of execution of the sale-deed dated 26th May, 2009; that there were two shops on the ground floor but the tenant removed the parti­tion wall and unauthorisedly obtained possession of the second shop; that Geeta Devi sublet the shop to her father's brother's son Vishal lal and his son Prabhu Narain (opposite party Nos. 2 and 3) and that opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 took possession of the entire house unauthorisedly. It was, therefore, prayed that vacancy should be declared as the opposite parties were not family mem­bers of the original tenant and the building should be released in favour of the landlord as it was required for residential and business purposes and the build­ing also in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and new construc­tion. 3. An inspection of the building was directed to be made and the Regional Food Officer (Rent) made inspection on 16th December, 2009 and gave his report which mentions that at the time of inspection Vishal lal and his son Prabhu Narain were present in the shop. Vishal lal, however, called Smt. Geeta Devi who informed that her father Radhey lal who was the tenant from before 1970 died on 3rd April, 2000 and she became the tenant as she was the sole heir. Vishal lal, however, called Smt. Geeta Devi who informed that her father Radhey lal who was the tenant from before 1970 died on 3rd April, 2000 and she became the tenant as she was the sole heir. She also informed that Vishal lal, Prabhu Narain and Chain Babu were living with her permission and the monthly rent of the building was f 250/- but she did not have any receipt. 4. The report also mentions that on the ground floor of the house there is a shop measuring 6x9 feet and behind the shop there is a small room. Two rooms are on the first floor and one room on the second floor is in a dilapidated condi­tion while the other rooms had fallen down. The report further mentions that the applicant Anil Seth had informed him that he had purchased the house from Ganesh Singh through the registered sale-deed dated 26th May, 2009 and Geeta Devi was residing with her children in House No. CK 62/89, Kashipura and had given possession of the building to Vishal lal, Prabhu Nath and Chain Babu so as to retain possession of the house. 5. The Prescribed Authority issued notices to the parties. The parties filed their objections and evidence and thereafter the Prescribed Authority passed the order dated 3rd February, 2011 declaring vacancy. It is this order that has been assailed in this petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 3rd February, 2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority for declaring vacancy under section 12 of the Act deserves to be set aside as it has not taken into con­sideration the objections filed by the petitioners to the application filed by the landlord and nor has it considered the notice dated 21st July, 1953 filed by the petitioners. In this connection he has pointed out that Bikanu Prasad was the tenant of the premises since prior to the enforcement of the Act; that after the death of Bikanu Prasad, the tenancy devolved on his sons Radhey lal, Kesari Chand and Chain Babu-respondent No. 4; that after the death of Radhey lal on 3rd April, 2000 and Kesari Chand on.2nd March, 2008, the petitioners contin­ued in occupation as tenants and that Ganesh Singh, son of late Shiv Nath Singh, owner of the property executed a registered sale-deed in favour of Anil Kumar on 26th May, 2009. It is, therefore, his submission that the petitioners are not unauthorised occupants and the Prescribed Authority committed an il­legality in declaring vacancy. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that the facts stated by the petitioners are against the records and in fact were not even taken by the opposite parties before the Prescribed Authority or in this peti­tion and in fact such facts have been stated for the first time in Writ Petition No. 4886 of 2012 that has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the subse­quent order dated 20th December, 2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the release application of the landlord has been allowed. It is his sub­mission that the Prescribed Authority committed no illegality in declaring vacancy. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the par­ties. 9. It is seen from the application filed by the landlords for release of the shop on 13th August, 2009 that a specific case was taken that initially Radhey lal was the tenant of a shop on the ground floor of the house and after his death on 3rd April, 2000, Geeta Devi became the tenant of the shop but the op­posite parties, who are not family members, unauthorisedly obtained posses­sion of the entire house and, therefore, vacancy should be declared. It was fur­ther stated that Geeta Devi had in fact vacated the premises and was residing with her children in House No. CK 62/89, Kashipura. 10. An objection was filed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 to the aforesaid application filed by the landlord. It was asserted that all the opposite parties were living as members of Joint Hindu Family and the shop was let out to Radhey lal as the "Karta1 of the Joint Hindu Family; that Radhey lal and his brothers Kesari Chand etc. were the tenants of the entire House No. 18/24, Thatheri Bazar, Varanasi from 1966 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/- which was in­creased to Rs. 20/-. Radhey lal died leaving behind his daughter Geeta Devi as his only heir. Kesari Chand (brother of Radhey Lai) also died and his son is Vishal lal, opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 3-Prabhu Narain is the son of Vishal lal. Opposite party No. 4-Chain Babu is the real brother of Radhey Lal. 11. 20/-. Radhey lal died leaving behind his daughter Geeta Devi as his only heir. Kesari Chand (brother of Radhey Lai) also died and his son is Vishal lal, opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 3-Prabhu Narain is the son of Vishal lal. Opposite party No. 4-Chain Babu is the real brother of Radhey Lal. 11. The Prescribed Authority found that Radhey lal was the tenant and on his death Geeta Devi became the tenant but the premises was occupied by Vishal lal, Prabhu Narain and Chain Babu who are not the members of the family and, therefore, vacancy under section 12 of the Act had arisen and, ac­cordingly, issued the order dated 13th February, 2011. 12. The petitioners have taken contrary stand at various stages of the liti­gation and even in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that the premises were taken on rent in 1968 by Radhey lal who was the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. 13. In view of the case taken up by the tenants in their objection, the sub­mission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the tenant of the shop was Bikanu Prasad and after his death his son Radhey lal, Kesari Chand and Chain Babu inherited the tenancy, cannot be accepted. 14. The contention of .the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the no­tice dated 21st July, 1953 which was sent by the erstwhile landlord late Shiv Nath Singh to Radhey lal and Kesari Chand terminating tenancy, was not taken into consideration by the Prescribed Authority even though it had been filed with the reply to the release application cannot be accepted as it was the case of the opposite parties that they became the tenants only in 1966. The al­leged notice regarding termination of tenancy cannot be of a prior date. 15. Vishal lal, Prabhu Narain and Chain Babu have been found to be in possession of the property. According to the petitioners they are living in their independent rights as joint tenants but this has not been accepted. Vishal lal, Prabhu Narain and Chain Babu are not family members of Geeta Devi as de­fined in section 3 (g) of the Act. Thus, vacancy, as contemplated under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act, has arisen since the tenant has permitted the building to be occupied by persons who are not members of the family. 16. Vishal lal, Prabhu Narain and Chain Babu are not family members of Geeta Devi as de­fined in section 3 (g) of the Act. Thus, vacancy, as contemplated under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act, has arisen since the tenant has permitted the building to be occupied by persons who are not members of the family. 16. Though the Prescribed Authority may not have elaborately dealt with the submissions and the evidence filed by the opposite parties but nothing has been pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners which may persuade the Court to take a different view. No useful purpose will, therefore, be served by remitting the matter to the Prescribed Authority for passing a fresh order. 17. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.