Gulati, J.
This petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The petitioner is the tenant of House No. 7/7, Anand Swarup Quarters, Bengali Mohalla, Debradun of which the 5th respondent, Shrimati Kapuri Devi is the land lady. It appears that the petitioner was transferred to Meerut as Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce Limited, Meerut. He, however, did not vacate the accommodation in question but retained his possession over it through one Shrimati Chandra Kala Devi who is said to be his distant relation and later on through his mother. He also paid a sum of Rs. 400/ to the land lady as advance rent Rs. 10/ per month. The 4th respondent, Sri K. D. Sharma applied for the allotment of the accommodation in his favour and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated June 9, 1970 allotted the house to him. The allottee did not succeed in getting possession. He moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for necessary help. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer instituted an enquiry through an Inspector who reported that the accommodation was in possession of Shrimati Chandra Kala Devi whereupon a notice was issued to her under Section 7A(1) treating her to be an unauthorised occupant. When the Inspector visited the accommodation again he found that Shrimati Chandra Kala Devi had vacated the house and in her place the petitioner''s mother was residing there. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation failing which coercive measures should be taken to eject him and to put the allottee in possession. The petitioner''s revision application was dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on September 30, 1971. Thereupon the petitioner approached the State Government under Section 7F of the Act and the State Government has also rejected the revision. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Under Section 7(2) of the Act District Magistrate has been empowered to allot an accommodation to a prospective tenant, if the accommodation has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. No allotment order can obviously be passed if there is no vacancy actual or expected. The question that arises is as to whether in the instant case there was actual or expected vacancy. Under Section 7 (1) (a) every landlord is required to report a vacancy to the District Magistrate and likewise under clause (b) of Section 7 (1) every tenant is required to report the vacancy Admittedly in the instant case neither the tenant (petitioner) nor the landlady gave any such notice .to the District Magistrate . Admittedly again, the petitioner never vacate the accommodation. He retained possession through Shrimati Chandra Kala Devi who is a distant relation of the petitioner and who acted as a caretaker during the temporary absence of petitioner from Dehradun and thereafter the petitioner''s mother remained in occupation. The question arises as to whether in these circumstances there was a vacancy actual or expected so that a valid allotment order could be made in favour of a prospective tenant. The expression ''vacancy'' as used in the Rent Control and Eviction Act has been the subject of interpretation in several cases. In Mahabir Prasad v. Kewal Krishna, 1953 A.L.J. 347 it was held:
"The word ''vacate'' as used in the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, (III of 1947) means that the tenant should have ceased to occupy the accommodation with the intention of not coming back to it again."
Again in Firm Saho Kumar Krishna Kumar v. Iqbal Ahmad and others, Special Appeal No. 2775 of 1959 decided on July 27, 1960 it was held:
"The fact alone that a tenant leaves the accommodation in his possession does not amount to his vacating the same. Mere withdrawal from the accommodation unless it is accompanied further by the intention of not returning to it either himself or by his nominee will not be the vacancy of the accommodation. The idea of determination of the interest in which he held in occupation is implicit in the expression ''vacant''. If a tenant leaves the accommodation and implements upon it a subtenant, a licensee or any other nominee of his he cannot be said to have vacated the accommodation. In the eye of law he continues to be in occupation though the actual occupation at the moment is that of his representative or nominee only."
In Maliesh Prasad and another v. S. K. Sinha and others, Writ Petition No. 1433 of 1958, decided on August 9, 1960 the Court observed:
"By termination of the lease the lessee may not be entitled in future to retain possession of the accommodation but so long as he does not completely withdraw his interest as lessee from the accommodation, the accommodation cannot be said to be vacant."
The same view has been reiterated in Shyam Lal Jaiswal and another v. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and others, 1961 A.L.J. 36.
It is clear that in the instant case the petitioner never vacated the accommodation even though he had been transferred to Meerut. He retained his possession first through a caretaker and thereafter through his mother. The fact that he paid 40 months rent in advance to the landlady also shows that he had no intention of abandoning the tenancy. There was thus neither actual nor an expected vacancy. The possession of the petitioner, therefore, could not be said to be unauthorised so that he could be evicted through coercive process under Section 7A(1) of the Act. He was a lawful tenant and continued to be so throughout. It is true that the petitioner got another house to live at Meerut and he shifted there with a part of his family also. But that cannot be said to be contrary to law. It is not correct, as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has held that a person cannot be allotted accommodation at more than one place There is no such bar contemplated by the Act. A person may be residing at one place but it may still be open to him to have rented accommodation elsewhere for the use of his family members or for his own occasional use. The law does not require that a person can have only one rented accommodation. As there was no vacancy in the eye of law the allotment order in favour of the 4th respondent was had and the petitioner was not liable to proceedings under Section 7A.
In the result, the petition succeeds, and is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner under Section 7A as well as the allotment order dated November 25, 1970 and December 26, 1970 (Annexure ) and ''2'' to the writ petition) are quashed. As no one has contested this petition, there will be no order as to the costs.
