Deemed vacancy under U.P. rent law arises only for independent occupation by a non-family member; revision challenge was maintainable.

An order declaring vacancy under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act was treated as a preliminary step in the chain leading to allotment or release, so it could be challenged together with the final order in revision; the prior writ order had preserved that liberty, and the High Court's contrary view was incorrect. On the merits, deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) arises only when a non-family member is allowed to occupy the premises in an independent right, not where occupation is by the tenant's family or connected persons. The revisional court was entitled to correct the Rent Controller's misreading of evidence, and the High Court improperly reappreciated the record under Article 227.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order declaring vacancy under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 could be challenged along with the final order of allotment or release in a revision under Section 18 of the Act. (ii) Whether the vacancy could validly be declared on the facts found, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 227 with the revisional order of the District Judge.

Issue (i): Whether an order declaring vacancy under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 could be challenged along with the final order of allotment or release in a revision under Section 18 of the Act.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act treats declaration of vacancy as a preliminary step leading to the final decision on allotment or release. An interlocutory or preliminary order that forms part of the decision-making process is ordinarily open to challenge when the final order is questioned. The earlier writ proceedings had expressly preserved liberty to challenge the vacancy order after the final order, and the later revisional challenge therefore could not be treated as barred. The High Court had misread the effect of the earlier order and had also overlooked the governing precedent which allowed challenge to the vacancy finding along with the final order.

Conclusion: The revision against the vacancy order along with the final order was maintainable, and the contrary view was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether the vacancy could validly be declared on the facts found, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 227 with the revisional order of the District Judge.

Analysis: The inspection material showed occupation by members of the tenant's family and persons connected with that family, and not by strangers occupying the premises in their own independent right. On the construction of deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act, vacancy is attracted only where the tenant or landlord allows occupation by a non-family member in that person's own right. The Rent Controller's finding was based on a misreading of the evidence and was contrary to the settled interpretation of the provision. The District Judge, in revision under Section 18, was therefore entitled to interfere for illegality, material irregularity, and perversity. The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, could not reappreciate the matter as a court of appeal, and its interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The vacancy declaration could not stand, the revisional order was justified, and the High Court's interference under Article 227 was and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the High Court's judgment was set aside, restoring the effect of the revisional decision in favour of the tenant.

Ratio Decidendi: A vacancy order under the U.P. rent law, being a preliminary step in the chain leading to allotment or release, may be challenged together with the final order in revision, and deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) arises only when a non-family member is permitted to occupy the premises in an independent right, not where such person resides with the tenant's family.

---