JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.1989 under Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur. 2. The dispute related to premises No. 76/577, Coolie Bazar, Kanpur Nagar and one godown is under the tenancy of the petitioner. Initially the father of the petitioner late Surender Kumar Gupta was tenant of the godown for the last 27 years and carried on the business in the name of M/s. Narayan Prasad Phool Chand. The landlord has intimated the vacancy and had also filed an application for release of accommodation. The premises were inspected by the Rent Control Inspector in presence of the son of Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta. According to the report of the Rent Control Inspector the iron material was stored in the godown. 3. The case set up is that the tenant had sold the goodwill of his business in favour of one Sri Pawan Kumar Jain and has also informed with regard to the closure of the business to the Sales Tax Officer by a letter, copy of which has been filed as Annexure CA-3. According to the tenant the godown in question is under the tenancy for last 27 years and they have been carrying on the business of iron and steel on commission basis. 4. The tenant filed an agreement dated 6.2.1988 with one Sri Ratan Kumar by which he has become sale and consignment agent of the principal and would get commission on the sale of iron goods supplied to him by the principal at the rate of Rs. 23 per metric ton. The petitioner further alleged that the landlord had also initiated proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which are pending. 5. The present proceeding before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were contested by the father of the petitioner Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta. It was alleged that the tenancy of the disputed accommodation was in the name of Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta and not in the name of the firm and as such, the sale of the goodwill would not create any vacancy in law. It is also incorrect that the tenant had removed all the goods and had given possession of the godown to Ratan Kumar Gupta. It is also incorrect that the tenant had removed all the goods and had given possession of the godown to Ratan Kumar Gupta. The business is conducted in the godown by the tenant himself and at no stage he would be deemed to have vacated. 6. These allegations have been denied by the landlord and it has been alleged that on account of financial problems and bad health Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta closed his business, run in the name of M/s. Narain Prasad Phool Chand and sold his goodwill and informed the closure to the Sales Tax Authorities. The telephone was got disconnected. The alleged business of commission agency as sale and consignment agent of the principal has been set up only to retain the possession along with Sri Rattan Kumar Jain to whom the premises have been sublet. 7. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the basis of material on record and the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their allegations came to the conclusion that Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta has stopped business due to financial difficulties and had sold the goodwill and his son who is a chartered accountant is also not doing business and declared deemed vacancy by the impugned order. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not in accordance with the law as no notice of inspection as required under Rule 8 was served on the sitting tenant and the inspection was made behind his back. It was further contended that the proceeding under Section 21 of the Act are also pending against the tenant for the release of the same accommodation. It has also been stated that the suit for arrears of rent was filed by the landlord against the tenant. As regards the occupation of the godown agreement between Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta and Sri Ratan Kumar Gupta indicates that the tenant is doing business of sale of iron goods as sale and consignment agent of the principal. More material was brought on record to indicate that the business was carried on as per aforesaid agreement. As regards the occupation of the godown agreement between Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta and Sri Ratan Kumar Gupta indicates that the tenant is doing business of sale of iron goods as sale and consignment agent of the principal. More material was brought on record to indicate that the business was carried on as per aforesaid agreement. It has also been stated that after the death of Surendra Kumar Gupta his son Sri Sukhant Gupta started doing business and lastly in the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that Sri Sukhant Gupta continued with the business of Commission agent for building material and iron goods and has started his independent business in the name of M/s. Sukhant Steel Traders. 9. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner these materials indicate that the tenant has neither stopped business nor he has vacated the disputed accommodation and the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer are arbitrary and based on extraneous consideration. 10. At the time of hearing of this petition opportunity was given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to bring on record material to establish that the business was carried on in the disputed accommodation by the tenant Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta or his son Sri Sukhant Gupta. Learned Counsel for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit which was controverted by the landlord by filing supplementary counter-affidavit and thereafter supplementary rejoinder-affidavit was also filed by the tenant. Inspite of the aforesaid opportunity the material which was brought on record is not sufficient to establish that any independent business was being carried on by Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta and after his death by his son Sri Sukhant Gupta, the present petitioner. The alleged commission agency business is not substantiated by material on record that this business was carried on by Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta after 8.2.1988. In fact the material which was brought on record even before this Court cannot be treated as sufficient to establish the conduct of business by Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta, as sale and consignment agent of the principal Sri Rattan Kumar Gupta. The challan and the alleged payment of commission could not be correlated and it appears that these documents have been prepared to give picture of occupation by Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta or his son Sri Sukhant Gupta when actually the godown was occupied after sub-letting by Sri Ratan Kumar Gupta. 11. The challan and the alleged payment of commission could not be correlated and it appears that these documents have been prepared to give picture of occupation by Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta or his son Sri Sukhant Gupta when actually the godown was occupied after sub-letting by Sri Ratan Kumar Gupta. 11. As regards filing of the suit for arrears of rent against Surendra Kumar Gupta, it was for the period prior to the date when it is alleged that the business was stopped and the goods were removed for the purposes of declaration of vacancy. The proceedings under Section 21 of the Act for release of same accommodation can also be initiated simultaneously and there is no legal impediment in this regard. To the present case as the landlord had given intimation with regard to the vacancy of the disputed accommodation, the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act are maintainable. The inspection of the premises was done in presence of the son of Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta and the petitioner cannot have any grievance. 12. Considering the question of occupation of the disputed godown by the tenant, in my opinion, from the material on record it is established that the tenant has stopped business and the alleged business of sale and consignment agent or start of independent business by Sri Sukhant Gupta, in the name of Sukhan Steel Traders, is merely an excuse and in an effort to retain the accommodation, this business has been set up. The findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The material which has been brought on record before this Court, is not sufficient to come to a definite conclusion that the tenant is conducting any business of his own, which may entitle him to retain the possession. It is conclusively established that the tenant has stopped old business and he is alleged to be associated with a new business not in his own independent right but, in fact, this has been done as a camouflage to cover up the sub-letting done by him. Hon'ble Supreme Court almost under identical circumstances have held that on the basis of the terms of agreement, oral evidence and the circumstances of the case, the agreement between the parties in the form of agency was in truth intended to be an agreement of sub-letting. Hon'ble Supreme Court almost under identical circumstances have held that on the basis of the terms of agreement, oral evidence and the circumstances of the case, the agreement between the parties in the form of agency was in truth intended to be an agreement of sub-letting. Bhagwan Das and another v. S. Rajdeo Singh and another. 13. For the aforesaid reasons the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot be held to be in violation of the provisions of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.