ORDER K.M. Dayal, J. - The present petition has been filed by the occupant of a shop claiming that the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord under Section 16 (1)(b) of Act No. XIII of 1972 is illegal inasmuch as there was no vacancy and the shop was wrongly declared as vacant under Section 12 of the said Act. The admitted facts on the record are that the father of the petitioner Sri Bhim Sen Agrawal was a tenant of the shop and after his death some time back the shop was locked for a long period. Thereafter an application was made for release of the premises on the ground that there was a legal vacancy. An inspection was made by the Inspector concerned on 29-5-1978 and this report of the Inspector and the survey report are filed as Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition. Both the reports disclose that the shop was found locked and the information that some goods were kept in the shop was given to the Inspector concerned through some witnesses orally. From these reports it appears that the shop was not inspected from inside and the report was made only on the information received by the Inspector from some witnesses. Relying on these reports that only sundry articles were placed in the shop the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared a vacancy under Section 12 of the said Act and thereafter the release order was passed in favour of landlord holding the shop to be vacant. 2. After accepting the report as it is I find that there was no sufficient material on which it could be held that there was vacancy. Learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the said Act. It provides that when the tenant or landlord has substantially removed his effects from the premises, a vacancy would be deemed to have occurred. Word "substantially" is a relative term. Unless it is known what was earlier property kept and what portion of it has been removed, it cannot be said that any substantial or not substantial portion has been removed. Accepting the report and the finding as they are it cannot be said that a vacancy in law was created as contemplated by Section 12 (1)(a) of the Act. Unless it is known what was earlier property kept and what portion of it has been removed, it cannot be said that any substantial or not substantial portion has been removed. Accepting the report and the finding as they are it cannot be said that a vacancy in law was created as contemplated by Section 12 (1)(a) of the Act. No party has claimed that subsection (2) of Section 12 was attracted. 3. In the circumstances the order of release passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 2 and affirmed by respondent No. 1 in revision are both quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to make a fresh enquiry about the vacancy in accordance with the observations made above and then decide the matter after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.