JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. The petitioner is the tenant-in-chief of property No. 15/239, Civil Lines, Kanpur since 1947. The third respondent, M/s Jagat Estate is the owner/landlord since 14 September 1984. The landlord submitted an intimation of vacancy on 30 May 2001 to the City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 15(1) of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 (herein after referred to as ''the Act, 1972) intimating that the property in question had fallen vacant as the property was sublet by the tenant to other firms. The petitioner contested the application stating that the petitioner is a tenant for more than 60 years, the intimation of vacancy is barred by laches under Section 15 (1) of the Act, 1972, further it was contended that the matter of subletting was also the subject matter of Suit No. 80 of 2001 and Suit No. 39 of 2004 filed by the landlord which is pending before the civil court, therefore, the property cannot be released in a summary proceedings under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act, 1972. It was alleged that Gram Udyog Mandal and M/s Gandhi Shanti Pratishthan were in occupation of a portion of the disputed property with the consent of the previous landlord. The delay condonation application in filing the vacancy application was rejected by order dated 11 September 2002 holding that the application is time barred, accordingly, the impugned order dated 10 December 2009 passed by the City Magistrate/Rent Control & Eviction Officer was contrary to the order dated 11 September 2002 and 31 March 2003. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer by the order dated 10 December, 2009 held that the entire portion under the tenancy of the petitioner which includes 28 rooms, 4 verandas, 6 latrines, bathrooms, 2 kitchens, angan, 2 tin-sheds, store and 10 servants quarters including the land appurtenant to the building of which the petitioner has sublet a portion to M/s Gram Udyog Mandal which includes 7 rooms, 4 small rooms, 2 varandas, 2 kitchens, 2 servant quarters and tin-shed and to Gandhi Shanti Pratishthan, which comprises of 3 rooms, one latrine and bathrooms, 2 servant quarters as tenants, shall be deemed to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act, 1972. Against the order, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 22(f) of the Act, 1972 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order dated 10 December 2009. Against the order, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 22(f) of the Act, 1972 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order dated 10 December 2009. Similarly, M/s Gram Udyog Mandal filed a review application against the same order. Both the applications were dismissed on 23 December 2009 and 25 January 2010 respectively. The third respondent/landlord filed an application for release of the disputed premises pursuant to the order dated 10 December 2009, contending that the premises is required for personal need and would construct a multi-storied commercial complex. The said application was allowed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer vide order dated 27 May 2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision being Rent Revision No.53 of 2011 ( M/s Bhartiya Antar-rashtriya Vyapari Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Jagat Estate and another) which was rejected on 18 November 2014. 2. The petitioner has come up in writ jurisdiction assailing the revisional order dated 18 November 2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, orders dated 27 May 2011 and 10 December 2009 passed by City Magistrate/Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the third respondent filed the vacancy application after a lapse of 18 years which was highly barred by time in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act, 1972. The portion of the property was sublet prior to the Act 1972, by the erstwhile landlord, this fact was in the knowledge of the present landlord at the time of purchase of the property in 1984. 4. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent contended that the vacancy happens on happening of a specified event, intimation of vacancy is not a precondition to constitute the vacancy, therefore, intimation of vacancy even if was invalid would not make any difference. Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 11 September 2002 rejected the delay condonation application but has rightly proceeded with vacancy proceedings as vacancy was in existence intimation or no intimation. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon Smt. Shashi Govil vs. District Judge, Meerut and others,1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputing that the property in question was sublet and even payment of rent by the sub-tenant was admitted. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon Smt. Shashi Govil vs. District Judge, Meerut and others,1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputing that the property in question was sublet and even payment of rent by the sub-tenant was admitted. 6. The Supreme Court in Sidhharth Viyas and another vs. Ravi Nath Misra and others2,, held that acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenant, prior to enforcement of the Act, would be covered by Section 12(3) of the Act, 1972. Para-15 of the judgment is as follows: "Thus, in our view, mere use of present tense in Section 12(3) is not intended to limit the applicability of the provision to acquisition of accommodation by the tenant after the Rent Act becomes applicable. In the context, the provision also covers the situation where the tenant has acquired alternative accommodation before the applicability of the Rent Act. This view is further supported by the language of the proviso. The proviso clearly shows that the provision in question is not intended to be limited to a situation where alternative accommodation is acquired after the Act commences or becomes operative. The provision also covers a situation where the alternative accommodation is acquired prior to that. The scope of proviso is narrower than the main provision. " 7. Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Keshar Bai v. The District Judge, Mathura and others3, held that Section 12(1)(b) takes within itself not only the cases which came into existence after the commencement of the Act but also before. It is retrospective in operation. Para 37 is extracted : - "It, therefore, appears to us that if a tenant has sub-let the premises either before or after the coming into force of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, he would come within the clutches of clause 12(1)(b), and it does not matter that he had the right to sub-let the premises under Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act. In the absence of Rent Act, a landlord had a common law right to evict the tenant either on the determination of tenancy or by afflux of time. While the Rent Control Ligislation has provided a number of facilities to the tenant, it should not be construed so as to destroy the limited relief which is available to a landlord. Clause 12(1)(b) entitles the Distt. While the Rent Control Ligislation has provided a number of facilities to the tenant, it should not be construed so as to destroy the limited relief which is available to a landlord. Clause 12(1)(b) entitles the Distt. Authorities to take action for eviction of a person illegally brought in. The scheme of the Act is to protect a lawful tenant and not a person who is illegally inducted. Permitting a sub-tenant or a person unauthorisedly brought in to continue in possession is to defeat the purpose and object of the Act. A protection is available to a tenant only so long as he does not commit a breach of the provisions of the Act." 8. A Division Bench in Arun Kumar Joseph vs. Victor Sameul Mathews and another4, 2013 (2) ARC 884 , was called upon to answer the following questions of law : - "(a). Whether release application by landlord can be said to be barred by limitation if the same is presented after more than 12 years from the date person is said to have entered into an unauthorized occupation of the premises covered by U.P. Act No.13 of 1972; (b) Whether in absence of any limitation being provided under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for initiation of release proceedings, qua deemed vacancy can any period of limitation, be read in the statutory provisions, on the principle that the power/right vested must be exercised within reasonable time." 9. The Court in para-21 answered the questions under reference in the following terms : (i)Answer to Question No.(a): - Release application by landlord cannot be treated to be barred by limitation even if the same is presented after more than 12 years from the date person has entered into an unauthorised occupation of the premises covered by the Act. (ii)Answer to Question No.(b): - In absence of any limitation being provided under the Act for initiation of release proceedings in respect of deemed vacancy, no period of limitation can be read in the statutory provisions only on the principle that a power vested in an authority must be exercised within a reasonable time. 10. The factum of the property being sub-let is admitted by the petitioner before the authorities and before this Court. Delay or limitation is an irrelevant factor while considering the question of deemed vacancy. 11. 10. The factum of the property being sub-let is admitted by the petitioner before the authorities and before this Court. Delay or limitation is an irrelevant factor while considering the question of deemed vacancy. 11. For the reasons and law stated herein above, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 13. No order as to costs.