Judgment A.K. Yog, J. (1) Petitioner has come up before this Court by filing petition under Article 226, Constitution of India being aggrieved against order dated 2.5.2000 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 1, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Meerut (Delegated Authority appointed under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 called the Act) whereby vacancy has been declared on the basis of Rent Control Inspector's report dated 9.8.1996 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). (2) Perusal of the report does not indicate that any of the ingredients under Section 12 of the Act has been satisfied. Order declaring vacancy prima facie appears to be erroneous and suffers from error apparent on the face of record. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.M. Dayal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ram Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri P.K. Jain, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No. 2. (3) Learned Counsel for the respondents argued that opposite party had led evidence to indicate that accommodation was being used for non-residential purpose and that the petitioners had entered into an agreement for purchase of another accommodation. The Rent Control Inspector did not inspect the alleged accommodation No. K-3/380 land the Delegated Authority did not advert to the aspect whether petitioner had acquired the house and if so in what capacity. Even otherwise the Delegated Authority ought to have considered whether acquisition of another accommodation had, in law, the consequence of deemed vacancy with respect to me accommodation in dispute under Section 12 of the Act. (4) In absence of requisite finding on relevant issues (as also conceded by Senior Advocate Sri K.M. Dayal) and the report of Rent Control Inspector being silent with respect in the relevant aspects, there was no question of deemed vacancy under Section 12 of the Act. Accordingly the impugned order dated 2.5.2000 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) cannot he sustained. It is accordingly, set aside with direction to the Delegated Authority/ respondent No. 1, to call for fresh report under Rule 8 of the Act and decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (5) Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondent, has pointed out that the matter has been pending since 1996. In view of the above. (5) Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondent, has pointed out that the matter has been pending since 1996. In view of the above. I direct the Respondent No. 1 to decide the matter expeditiously and as early as possible. Writ petition stands allowed subject to the above observations and directions. No order as to cost. Petition allowed.