JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Nand Lal Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Adil Jamal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. For allotment of premises in question i.e. portion of house No. 105-655 Tukaniya Purwa, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar, an application was moved wherein order of declaration of vacancy dated 14.7.2015 under Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was passed which is under challenged in the instant writ petition. 3. An allotment application was filed on 5.3.2014 and after the spot inspection done on 21.5.2014 by the Rent Control Inspector, the proceedings were initiated. The order indicates that the Rent Control Eviction Officer found that the premises was in possession of Mohd. Saleem son of Mohd. Ismail who told the Inspector that he had purchased the house in question from the original owner namely Sri Safi Ullah in the name of his wife Smt. Anwar Jahan. The registered sale deed dated 10.10.2013 has been executed and since thereafter he is residing in the premises in question. The portion in which tenant Arif Beg was residing was vacated on 19.10.2013 and possession was handed over to the petitioner Mohd. Saleem wherein he had started making strips of slippers. The portion in possession of the petitioner is at the ground floor which consists of a shop, a room and one 'chabutra'. 4. It appears that in the allotment application one Mohd. Ali has been shown as owner/landlord. 5. The contention of Mohd. Ali is that he had purchased the entire house no. 105-655 Tukaniya Purwa, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar vide sale deed dated 31.7.2013 and initially one Arif Beg was tenant therein. The tenant Arif Beg surrendered the portion of his tenancy to Mohd. Saleem without adopting any legal procedure, Mohd. Saleem is not a legal occupant. The vacant portion therefore, became vacant. The tenant Arif Beg was also served a notice. The Court below though found that there was dispute with regard to ownership of the house in question which was claimed to have been purchased by two persons and hence it was beyond its jurisdiction. The issue of title can be decided only by the Civil Court. However, the Court below had proceeded to examine the issue of vacancy on the ground that Arif Beg who was tenant had vacated the premises and handed over to Mohd. Saleem. Mohd. The issue of title can be decided only by the Civil Court. However, the Court below had proceeded to examine the issue of vacancy on the ground that Arif Beg who was tenant had vacated the premises and handed over to Mohd. Saleem. Mohd. Saleem has been inducted without there being any allotment order or release order and hence the vacancy occurred. The possession of Mohd. Saleem in the premises in question has been found of an unauthorised occupant. 6. Challenging the order impugned learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been inducted as owner of the property and the premises in question was handed over to him by the sitting tenant. The question as to whether the petitioner could be inducted as owner of the property on the basis of sale deed is not subject matter of challenge in the allotment proceedings. 7. So far as release or allotment is concerned, it is apparent from the record that the sitting tenant had handed over the tenanted portion to the petitioner after purchase. The dispute as to whether on the basis of registered sale deed dated 10.10.2013, the petitioner had a right to the property cannot be decided by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and hence he did not rightly entered into the said issue. 8. However, in view of the fact that the allotment application was filed subsequent to the sale deed and possession of the petitioner as owner by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 10.10.2013, the provision of Section 13 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 would be of no application. The vacancy has been declared on misconception and misapplication of legal provision. 9. The order dated 14.7.2015 passed by the Additional City Magistrate 3rd/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar in case No. 13 of 2014 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed.