JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring the premises in dispute as vacant. The proceedings started on an application which was moved by opposite party No. 2 Girja Shanker Tewari, on 26th April, 1980 under Section 12 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for allotment of the premises on the ground that the premises has fallen vacant. The Supply Inspector made the local inspection and found that the petitioner was residing on the first floor, while on the ground floor certain medicines were found and the water and electric connections were in the name of the petitioner. The matter went before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before whom evidence was tendered by the parties. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the premises was not vacant and Girja Shanker Tewari, opposite party No. 2, who applied for allotment is none else, but the landlord's wife's own brother. 2. From the record it appears that the building was taken on rent by M/s. Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya, Station Road, Rae Bareli, opposite party No. 3 in the year 1946 or 1947. It is not in dispute that Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya, opposite party No. 3 is no longer in existence and the service was affected at its Varanasi address. From the record it appears that the petitioner was doing the profession of Vaidya. According to the petitioner Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya, Rae Bareli, was closed and its Agency is at Rae Bareli from 1972 and since then the petitioner has been carrying on business as Commission Agent of opposite party No. 3, Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya. On behalf of the opposite parties it was contended that the petitioner is doing his own work of Physician and dispensing medicines and he was issuing fake certificates. 3. On behalf of the parties affidavits were filed, on behalf of the petitioner one of the affidavit was filed by Dilip Kumar, his Counsel, who stated that in the year 1972 intimation was given that the landlord is reported to have died in the year 1976 and thereafter the petitioner deposited the rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month in the Court. The landlord being dead his son filed an affidavit denying the contents of Dilip Kumar's affidavit. 25/- per month in the Court. The landlord being dead his son filed an affidavit denying the contents of Dilip Kumar's affidavit. It was pleaded for that side that in fact premises fell vacant in 1980 and the business of Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya was closed in 1976. 4. The petitioner collected some evidence from Varanasi and placed it on record and it is apparent from the said evidence that Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya closed the agency in 1976. 5. The petitioner earlier was carrying in the agency on behalf of Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya, opposite party No. 3 and now he works of his own. It is true that the premises was in the tenancy of Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya and the petitioner was its principal agent and managing its affairs and is carrying on business in the said shop since long continuously although the Control and Eviction Officer had discarded the evidence which was tendered on behalf of the petitioner, yet the fact remains that the petitioner has been in occupation of the premises from the year 1946-47 and it cannot be denied that his belongings were kept in the premises in dispute in which he also resides. Ayurvedic medicine are dispensed and sold by him. It may be that earlier the business was in the name of other persons, but later on similar or same business was being carried out by the petitioner. 6. Section 12 of the Act which provides for the events on the happening and existence of which any building could be deemed to be vacant reads as under :- "Section 12 Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases. - (1) A landlord or tenant of building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part there of if - (a) he has substantially removed his effects therefrom, or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or (c) in the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken - up residence not being temporary residence, elsewhere. (2) In the case of non-residential building where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. (3) In the case of residential building, if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacate state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy. In the instant case Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya was tenant through the petitioner. It is true that the business under the name of Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya was closed in the year 1976. But the petitioner was carrying on his own business. The landlord, it seems, recognised him as a tenant and was charging rent from him. Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalya having closed its business at Rae Bareli shifted to Varanasi. It is difficult to accept that the same was not in the knowledge of the landlord who had been accompanying rent from the petitioner. The landlord treated the petitioner as a tenant from before. The petitioner being treated as tenant from before, obviously he could have claimed status of tenant of the premises in dispute as principal officer of Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya where he was residing and carrying on business under his name and style. Even if for argument sake it is accepted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and is not its tenant, he was in occupation of the premises since long to the knowledge of the landlord who was treating him as such, may be for limited purpose, it could not be said that the premises was vacant. The shifting of agency, but carrying on business of the petitioner himself, it could not be said that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises or part thereof removed his effects from the premises which were found at the time of local inspection. The premises was not occupied by any person. As such in this case it could not be said that in fact the premises had fallen vacant. The premises was not occupied by any person. As such in this case it could not be said that in fact the premises had fallen vacant. In these circumstances the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated April 27, 1983 contained in Annexure 7, is quashed. No order as to costs.