JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - This is landlords writ petition directed against an order passed in proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Admittedly, respondent No, 2 was the tenant of the shop in question. He intimated to the Inspector that he intended to vacate the shop by the end of August, 1976. On the basis of this report the Inspector submitted papers to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for declaration of vacancy. The vacancy was declared on 31876. Thereafter the petitioner's release application was allowed by him. On revision by the tenant, the learned Additional District Judge, however, took the view that mere intimation of intention to vacate the premises given by the tenant was not enough for declaration of vacancy. Accordingly, it was held that the vacancy had been wrongly declared and as such the release application of the landlord could also not be considered. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come to this Court. 2. During the pendency of the petition the original landlord has died and has been substituted by his widow as his legal representative. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Although the original order notifying the vacancy is not on the record, it is not disputed before me that the only basis of the order notifying the vacancy was the report of the Inspector based on the aforementioned intimation given by the tenant opposite party No. 2. The intimation was only to the effect that the tenant intended to vacate the premises. It is, however, in serious controversy as to whether the tenant actually vacated the premises. According to the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 thereafter transferred the possession to opposite party no. 3. On the other hand it has been contended on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 that he continues to be in occupation of the shop and carrying on business therein as before. In other words, he did originally intend to vacate the premises but later on he changed his mind and continued to carry on as before. 5. It appears from annexure6 that on behalf of the petitioner an affidavit was given before the revisional court to the effect that opposite party no. 2 had obtained employment in a company and had transferred possession of the shop to opposite party no. 3 who was an applicant for allotment. 5. It appears from annexure6 that on behalf of the petitioner an affidavit was given before the revisional court to the effect that opposite party no. 2 had obtained employment in a company and had transferred possession of the shop to opposite party no. 3 who was an applicant for allotment. No finding has however been recorded on this question either by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer or by the Additional District Judge. 6. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge that the mere intimation of intention was not enough for declaration of vacancy cannot be seriously assailed. The conditions of declaration of vacancy are set out in Section 12 of the Act and unless a finding is given in that behalf the authorities cannot declare a vacancy. They cannot pin down the tenant to his original intention or insist on his carrying out the originally expressed intention of vacating the premises even if he chooses later to change his mind. 7. However it was necessary for the authorities to have investigated the factual position as to whether actual vacancy has occurred or not within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act. As this has not been done the batter requires to be remitted back. As investigation of facts in involved it would not be expedient to send it back to the Additional District Judge. Instead, it would be proper to send it back to the officer exercising the powers of the District Magistrate. 8. In the result the writ petition is allowed in part, and the order dated 3181976 and also the order dated 2651977, annexure5, passed by the R.C. and E.O. and the order of the Additional District Judge dated 6111978, annexure7, are hereby quashed. The officer exercising the powers of the District Magistrate shall now consider the question afresh as to whether a vacancy has occurred or is deemed to have occurred within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act, and only in case the vacancy, is so found, then to consider the petitioner's release application, and if the release application be rejected then only to consider any allotment application. 9. No order is made as to costs. [Partly allowed]