JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Ill Additional District Judge, Mathura, dated 3-11-1979, dismissing the revision and sustaining the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 22-2-1979, allotting the ground floor of the house in dispute to one Deo Karan, Opposite Party No. 3. The next petitioner in this writ petition has also challenged the order dated 18-1-1979, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the application for review under section 16(5) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), as well as against the original order dated 25-4-1978, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring that Sri Surjeet Singh Sharma was not a member of the family of the petitioner tenant, Sri Prem Behari Lal Saxena, and there was deemed vacancy under section 12(l)(b) of the Act. 2. In this petition the learned counsel has contended that the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the question of vacancy and deemed vacancy are manifestly erroneous, and the Revisional Authority failed to consider the question in exercise of its power of revision. On the question whether there was a vacancy or not, it was incumbent on the Revisional Authority to have considered the matter fully before concluding that there was a vacancy. The learned counsel contended that this has not been done in the present case. He further contended that there was sufficient material on the record to show that there was no vacancy. The learned counsel has also contended that certain papers had been filed at the stage of review under section 16(5), but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not taken them into consideration, and he thereby committed manifest error of law. 3. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor does any one appear for respondent No. 3, the allottee. 4. I have also perused the material on the record. It is elementary that in deciding the question whethcrea a vacancy has occurred or not, the District Magistrate has to ascertain, it there exists a vacancy. 5. The vacancy of an accommodation which is in tenancy of a party can occur in more ways than one. 4. I have also perused the material on the record. It is elementary that in deciding the question whethcrea a vacancy has occurred or not, the District Magistrate has to ascertain, it there exists a vacancy. 5. The vacancy of an accommodation which is in tenancy of a party can occur in more ways than one. Section 12 of the Act stipulates that in the case of residential building a tenant would be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building if he has substantially removed his effects therefrom, or has allowed it to be occupied by any person, who is not a member of his family, or he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence elsewhere. There are other provisions also, namely, section 12(3) where a similar question of deemed vacancy will arise if the tenant or any member of his family build or otherwise acquires, in a vacant state or gets vacated, the residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate. 6. In the present case the deemed vacancy is said to have occurred as the petitioner-tenant of the accommodation is said to have allowed it to be occupied by one Surjeet Singh Sharma, who was not a member of his family, the question was fairly put under section 12 (1)(b) of the Act. It was, therefore, incumbent on the District Magistrate or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who was exercising the powers of the District Magistrate, to have satisfied himself on the basis of the material on the record that the petitioner had allowed the accommodation to be occupied by Surjeet Singh Sharma. There is no dispute that the latter is not a member of the family of the petitioner. The scope of inquiry, therefore, related only to the question whether it had been allowed to be occupied by Surjeet Singh Sharma. 7. In the present case the record shows that an application had been made before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that there was a deemed vacancy of the building occupied by the petitioner, as he had taken Sri Surjeet Singh Sharma in the building in dispute. The record also shows that as inspection of the building was made by the Inspector on 10-1-1977. The record also shows that as inspection of the building was made by the Inspector on 10-1-1977. The Rent Control Inspector's report has not been filed, but the order dated 25-4-1978 shows that the report as follows : "The Senior Inspector (R.C.), who made enquiries earlier on 10-1-77 reported that he found Sri Surjeet Singh Sharma in accommodation No. 780, Ghati Bahal Rai. Mathura and that the tenant Sri Prem Behari Lal Saxena had informed him that Sri Surjeet Singh Sharma was his personal friend and had been given liberty to take meals and to sleep occasionally in the disputed accommodation." The other consideration that weighed with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, as is evident from his order dated 25-4 1978, is that Sri Surjeet Singh Sharma had got a table fan from M/s. Shyam Electric Stores, Chatta Bazar, Mathura and therein he had given his address as 780 Ghati Bahal Rai, Mathura. Principally on the basis of these materials the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that there was sufficient ground to consider that Surjeet Singh Sharma was accommodated by Prem Behari Lal Saxena in the lower portion of the building, and a vacancy was ordered to be notified. 8. It seems that before the aforesaid order was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, he had passed an order on 8-2-1977 presumably on the basis of the report of the Inspector dated 10-1-1977. This order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is significant. It reads as follows : "I have gone through the file carefully. Both the storeys at the time of enquiry were found under the occupation of Sri Radha Sharan Sharma 1st storey and Prem Behari Lal Saxena on ground floor. Hence there is no vacancy. Papers be filed." There is a mention of this order in the impugned order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, dated 25-4-1978 but has this been referred to any - where in the order dated 3-11-1979 passed by the Revisional Authority. 9. It will further be relevant to mention that yet another inspection was done on 17-5-1977 by the Rent Control Inspector, and a copy of this report is marked as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 9. It will further be relevant to mention that yet another inspection was done on 17-5-1977 by the Rent Control Inspector, and a copy of this report is marked as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. This time Sri Radha Sharan Sharma, who was the tenant on the upper floor of the same house, had initiated proceedings by saying that the petitioner had inducted Shri Surjeet Singh Sharma as a tenant. Consequently, there was a vacancy. The Rent Control Inspector had inspected the premises on the 15th and 17th May, 1977. On the 16th May the ground floor was found locked. The petitioner was the tenant of the ground floor and Sri Radha Sharan Sharma was a tenant of the upper floor. He also reported that there was intense enmity between these two persons, and they had criminal litigation pending from before. The Rent Control Inspector further reported that the real state of affairs could not be observed as the neighbours were apprehensive of making any comment. Consequently, he remarked that it was not possible to note the real situation. He further stated that if Sri Radha Sharan Sharma wanted to press his application, then he should produce some documentary evidence which would enable further proceedings to be taken out. This report was submitted on 18-5-1977. It is true that this report was subsequent to the original order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 25-4-1978. This report was however, available on the file w hen the review application came for consideration before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The order dated 18-1-1979 passed by the same Rent Control and Eviction Officer does not show anywhere that he considered either the order passed by his predecessor on 8-2-1977 or the report of the Inspector dated 18-5-1977. The Revisional Authority has also not taken into consideration the subsequent report of the Inspector dated 18-5-1977. It goes without saying that these were relevant and material evidence in deciding the question whether there was a vacancy or not. If material evidence is ignored and not taken into consideration in giving a finding on the question of vacancy, that finding is vitiated. It is well established that a proceeding for evicting from an accommodation and for allotting it to another party commences upon the ascertainment of vacancy or deemed vacancy as the case may be. If material evidence is ignored and not taken into consideration in giving a finding on the question of vacancy, that finding is vitiated. It is well established that a proceeding for evicting from an accommodation and for allotting it to another party commences upon the ascertainment of vacancy or deemed vacancy as the case may be. A finding on such question has to be given on the basis of all available and relevant material on the record. Where the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Revisional Authority fall to take the same into consideration, the finding is recorded by an error of law apparent on the face of record. The Revisional Authority in the present case took the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 25-4-1978 as a finding on the question of fact without going into the question whether it was based on the relevant evidence on the record. A finding of fact arrived at and based on the appraisement of the relevant material on the record is not liable to be interferred with in the revisional jurisdiction under section 18 of the Act, but as there is a failure to consider the relevant and material evidence which has a bearing on the question of jurisdiction, the order passed by the Revisional Authority cannot be sustained and it must be set aside. 10. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order in the present case, namely, the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 25-4-1978, the second order dated 18-1-1979 and the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 3-11-1979 must be set aside, and the matter be sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a fresh proceeding in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above, I have not made any comments on the evidence on the record. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to consider the relevant material on the record and decide the matter in accordance with law. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed. Since no one appears on behalf of the respondents, there shall be no orders as to costs.