JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Rent Control Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 175 of 2006 and other connected cases by which one room accommodation which was earlier in possession of Ramji Lal and, now, in possession of the petitioner, has been declared vacant. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential order dated 22.06.2016 by which the said premises has been released in favour of the landlord. The order dated 25.01.2017 by which the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar has dismissed the Rent Revision No. 37 of 2016 against the order of release has also been challenged. A perusal of the record would go to show that it is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was tenant of two rooms, Chabutra, Courtyard and a latrine belonging to House No. 119/479, Darshanpurwa, Kanpur Nagar. The accommodation adjoining the accommodation given on rent to the petitioner was in the tenancy of one Ramji Lal. Ramji Lal vacated the premises in his occupation. According to the landlord, the petitioner illegally occupied one room left by Ramji Lal who, out of the three rooms in his possession, surrendered two rooms to the landlord but passed on possession of one room to the petitioner. According to the case taken by the petitioner, Ramji Lal was in occupation of two rooms and Varandah. Two rooms were surrendered by him in favour of the landlord whereas the Verandah, with the permission of the landlord, came to the possession of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner is in possession of uncovered portion, therefore, it does not partake the character of building and as such there was no requirement for allotment of Verandah and since the Verandah constitutes part of the accommodation now in the tenancy of the petitioner, the same could not have been declared vacant as has been done by the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar would go to show that after considering the documents and material brought on record, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the alleged Verandah was not in the shape of Verandah but was in the shape of a room and its existence as a Verandah was not established. Accordingly, it came to the conclusion that as admittedly the petitioner was tenant of two rooms accommodation and now the third room has come to his possession, unauthorisedly, without any letter of allotment, the same would be deemed vacant and as such was open for allotment/release proceeding. Although the petitioner has challenged the subsequent order of release and the revisional order passed by the revisional court but the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that unless he is able to satisfy the Court that there was no occasion to declare the premises in question vacant, he would have no right to challenge an order of release, because in that event the petitioner would be its unauthorised occupant. Accordingly, what has to be considered is whether the accommodation in question was rightly declared vacant or not. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a premises would be deemed vacant if it falls in any of the categories mentioned in section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It has been submitted that merely being an unauthorised occupant would not make the premises in occupation deemed vacant and therefore the declaration that the premises in question was vacant because the petitioner had occupied the premises without an order of allotment is illegal and liable to be set aside. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted on conjoint reading of sections 11, 12 and 13 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 11 of the Act provides that save as provided by the Act, no person shall let any building except in pursuance of an order of allotment issued under Section 16. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted on conjoint reading of sections 11, 12 and 13 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 11 of the Act provides that save as provided by the Act, no person shall let any building except in pursuance of an order of allotment issued under Section 16. Section 12(1) provides that a landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if-(a) he has substantially removed his effects therefrom; or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family; or (c) in the case of residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere. Section 13 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 mandates that where a landlord or tenant ceases to occupy a building or part thereof, no person shall occupy the premises in any capacity on his behalf or otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under Section 16 and if a person so purports to occupy it, he shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 31, be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of such building or part. Section 15 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 mandates that every landlord, shall on a building falling vacant by his ceasing to occupy it or by the tenant vacating it or by release from requisition or in any other manner whatsoever give notice of the vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate not later than seven days after the occurrence of such vacancy, and such notice may at the option of the landlord be given before the occurrence of the vacancy. In the instant case, it has been found that the accommodation of which the disputed accommodation is a part was let out to Ramji Lal. Ramji Lal vacated the premises and one room of the premises was occupied by the petitioner without an order of allotment. Therefore, by legal fiction the petitioner became its unauthorised occupant and as the previous tenant ceases to occupy it there is a deemed vacancy. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order declaring vacancy. No other point was pressed. The petition is dismissed.