JUDGMENT : A.N. VARMA, J. 1. This petition is directed against orders passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 rejecting an application of the Petitioner for the release of a shop, of which the Respondent No. 3 was admittedly the tenant, u/s 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. These are the relevant facts: The Respondent No. 3 Sri Lakshman Das was admittedly the tenant of the shop in dispute. The Petitioner moved an application u/s 16(1)(b) for the release of the shop on the ground that the said tenant had passed on possession of the shop to his brother Sri Chandra Prakash who is arrayed as Respondent No. 4, and that, therefore, this shop was liable to be deemed vacant u/s 12(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act. On the plea that the shop was vacant the Petitioner moved the aforesaid application for the release on the ground that the same was bonafide needed by him for his own use. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer rejected that application on the finding that the shop was not in fact vacant, nor could it be deemed vacant u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act. The Petitioner, thereupon, filed a revision u/s 18 before the learned District Judge, Saharanpur, who has dismissed the same and hence this petition. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the finding of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer that the shop in dispute had not fallen vacant was unsustainable in law. It was urged that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer committed a patent illegality in taking the view that it was the Joint Hindu Family of which Respondent No. 3 claimed to be the karta which was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute, inasmuch as, the Respondent No. 3 himself had in some correspondence asserted, that he was the sole tenant. Counsel also urged that the assessment orders were wrongly not summoned, by the Sales Tax Authorities as they were not confidential documents. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer committed an illegality in not insisting on the production of the same. 4. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I find no merits in this petition. 5. Counsel also urged that the assessment orders were wrongly not summoned, by the Sales Tax Authorities as they were not confidential documents. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer committed an illegality in not insisting on the production of the same. 4. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I find no merits in this petition. 5. The finding of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer is that the business which was being carried on in the shop in dispute was Joint Family business of which Lakshman Das was the 'karta' and that from the mere fact that the brother of Lakshman Das was found looking after the business in the shop in dispute at the relevant time, did not mean that the tenant had allowed it to be occupied by his brother. I am in agreement with the view expressed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer that the original tenant of the shop in dispute namely Lakshman Das being the 'karta' of the Joint Hindu Family which was doing the business under the name and style "Cambridge Book Depot", in the shop in dispute, the mere fact that his brother Chandra Prakash was at present looking after the business in the shop as a member of the said Joint Hindu Family cannot possibly lead to the conclusion that the tenant had passed on the possession to his brother so as to give rise to a deemed vacancy. I further find that there was good evidence on the record to sustain the finding that the business which was being carried on in the shop in question was Joint Hindu Family business of which Lakshman Das was the karta. This finding of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer is not vitiated by any error of law. The finding of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer therefore, that the shop in dispute could not be deemed to be vacant is thus correct and calls for no interference by this Court. 6. As regards the grievance of the Petitioner, with respect to the assessment records which were sought to be summoned by the Petitioner, I find that this complaint was not made before the learned District Judge in the revision. The omission of the Petitioner to do so disentitles him from making a grievance on that score in this Court. 7. There are no merits in this petition, which is consequently dismissed. The omission of the Petitioner to do so disentitles him from making a grievance on that score in this Court. 7. There are no merits in this petition, which is consequently dismissed. There will no orders as to cost.