JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed today an impleadment application dated 24.07.2019, to implead the owner of the house, namely, Sri Sanjay Mittal, son of late K.K. Mittal as per detail mentioned in the prayer clause of the application. The application is allowed. Sri Sanjay Mittal is allowed to be impleaded as respondent No.4. 3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following relief:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 (Annexure - 1' to this writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent no.1. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in premise, House No.111/316 Harsh Nagar, P.S. Najirabad, Kanpur Nagar. 4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that Vinay Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar Jain both are the sons of Satya Narain Jain. Sri Satya Narayan Jain was the original owner and landlord of House No.111/316, Harsh Nagar, P.S. Najirabad, Kanpur Nagar. After his death his two sons, namely, Vinay Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar Jain became owner and landlord of the aforesaid house. Subsequently, Vijay Kumar Jain has sold his share in the aforesaid house to his brother's wife Smt. Rekha Jain by a registered sale deed dated 08.11.2006. Vinay Kumar Jain and his wife Rekha Jain sold the aforesaid entire house to the newly impleaded respondent no.4 by a registered sale deed dated 06.12.2017, registered on 12.12.2017. 5. One Sri Kashi Nath Baijal was the tenant in a portion of the aforesaid house. He had three sons, namely, Pramod Kumar Baijal, Deepak Kumar Baijal and Jyoti Kumar Baijal. During his life time an order dated 24.07.1992 was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, declaring the vacancy of the disputed portion of the house in question. He had three sons, namely, Pramod Kumar Baijal, Deepak Kumar Baijal and Jyoti Kumar Baijal. During his life time an order dated 24.07.1992 was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, declaring the vacancy of the disputed portion of the house in question. Sri Baijal challenged that order in Rent Revision No.148 of 1992 which was allowed by judgment dated 14.09.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar, concluding as under:- "Thus, from he above discussions, it is clear that there was no occasion for the R.C. & E.O. to review the order passed by his predecessor for not declaring the vacancy. Once an order was passed for declaring that no vacancy exists then the said order could not have been reviewed by the R.C. & E.O. Furthermore, the property in dispute was not vacant and the revisionist was having the possession of the same in pursuance of the tripartite agreement and his possession was the of a sub-tenant. That after retirement the revisionist paid rent to the then owner and the owner/landlord accepted the rent and there was no vacancy and he became owner. In these circumstances, the revision deserves to be allowed and the order dated 24.7.1992 including the order dated 18.1.92 declaring vacancy and the order dated 23.1.92 ordering allotment in favour of O.P. No.1 deserve to be quashed, and accordingly the revision deserves to be allowed as the R.C. & E.O. has illegally exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in passing the impugned order." 6. From the aforesaid judgment dated 14.09.2004 in Rent Revision No.148 of 1992, it appears that original tenant was State Bank of India and subsequently Kashi Nath Baizal was admitted as a tenant. 7. Sri Pramod Kumar Baizal was the eldest son of the tenant - Sri Kashi Nath Baizal who acquired House No. 10/M/1, Block - 10, Scheme 40, Dabhauli, Kanpur Nagar, in vacant state by a registered sale deed dated 16.01.1984. Subsequently, Pramod Kumar Baizal died on 23.05.2001. His wife Madhu Baizal inherited the said house and got it free hold in her name by free hold deed dated 04.02.2005 and thereafter sold it in the year 2006. Another son, namely, Jyoti Kumar Biazal acquired a Flat No.5, 2nd Floor, Plot No.4, MIG Schme, Patrakarpuram, Kanpur Nagar, jointly with his wife Smt. Maya Baizal on 12.01.2011. His wife Madhu Baizal inherited the said house and got it free hold in her name by free hold deed dated 04.02.2005 and thereafter sold it in the year 2006. Another son, namely, Jyoti Kumar Biazal acquired a Flat No.5, 2nd Floor, Plot No.4, MIG Schme, Patrakarpuram, Kanpur Nagar, jointly with his wife Smt. Maya Baizal on 12.01.2011. He also acquired a very big house bearing Municipal No.62, Surendra Nagar, behind Durga Model School, Old Rawatpur, Kanpur Nagar, which as per his own written submission filed in case no.14 of 2018 (Shiv Sahay Misra Vs. Deepak Kumar Baizal and others); has been occupied by him after it was vacated by the outgoing tenant - Mrs. Uma Kapoor. According to the petitioner, the son of Jyoti Kumar Baizal is running a Marriage Hall under the name and style of "Dream Creation". Smt. Durga Baizal, wife of the original tenant Kashi Nath Baizal had died on 08.06.2017. Sons of late Kashi Nath Baizal were residing with Kashi Nath Baizal in the disputed house. 8. From the facts briefly noted above it is evident that the family members of the tenant Kashi Nath Baizal, who were residing with him had acquired three residential accommodations in vacant state as mentioned above. On these facts the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act stand clearly attracted. The disputed house was being used as residential building. The family members of the tenant Kashi Nath Baizal as aforementioned have acquired in vacant state one flat and two houses out of which the house acquired in the year 1984 was sold in the year 2006. Still they have in their possession one flat at Patrakarpuram and a very big house bearing Municipal No.62, Surendra Nagar, Old Ravatpura, Kanpur Nagar and they are in possession of the aforesaid flat and the house which are situate in the same city i.e. Kanpur Nagar where the disputed house is situate. Therefore, by legal fiction as created in sub-section 3 of Section 12 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy and the vacancy has occurred by operation of the statutory provisions of sub section 1 of Section 12 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 9. Briefly on the facts as aforenoted, the impugned order dated 07.06.1919 in case no. 14 of 2018 (Shiv Sahay Mishra Vs. 9. Briefly on the facts as aforenoted, the impugned order dated 07.06.1919 in case no. 14 of 2018 (Shiv Sahay Mishra Vs. Deepak Kumar and others) has been passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate (7) Kanpur Nagar, under Section 12 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in respect of the disputed portion of the House No.111/316, Harsh Nagar, P.S. Najirabad, Kanpur Nagar, which does not suffer from any infirmity for the reasons and facts aforenoted. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that a release application being P.A. Case No. 26 of 2009 (Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Durga Baizal and others) was filed by the erstwhile owner Vijay Kumar in the year 2009 which was allowed by order dated 02.11.2011 against which a Rent Appeal no.155 of 2011 was filed by the tenants which is pending and, therefore, the R.C. & E.O. was having no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 12 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. I do not find any force in this submission. 11. The provisions of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides for deemed vacancy by operation of law on happening of certain events as prescribed under the provisions itself. Section 21(1)(a) provides for release of the accommodation on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord. In the present set of facts the release application was filed by the erstwhile owner. There is no prohibition under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 that if an appeal against the order of release under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act is pending then vacancy under Section 12 of the Act can not be declared. Similar controversy came for consideration before a coordinate bench of this Court in Sarla Devi (Smt.) Vs. Pushpa Agnihotri (Smt.), (2008) 2 ARC 725 (paras 6 & 7) and following the earlier judgments in Sukhant Gupta Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur and another, (1991) 2 ARC 445, Naubat Ram Sharma Vs. Addl. District Judge IXth, Moradabad and others, (1987) 2 ARC 121 and Munnilal Vs. Prescribed Authority, Agra and others, 1992 ACJ 789, it has been held that it is open to the landlord to file an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and also file an application under Section 12(3) of the Act. Addl. District Judge IXth, Moradabad and others, (1987) 2 ARC 121 and Munnilal Vs. Prescribed Authority, Agra and others, 1992 ACJ 789, it has been held that it is open to the landlord to file an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and also file an application under Section 12(3) of the Act. The landlord can not be compelled to wait till such time as the appeal is decided. 12. For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.