DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24. 12. 1987 by which vacancy of the premises in dispute has been declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura under section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) ( 2 ) A Kotha bearing Municipal No. 996/34, Kishori Ramanganj, Mathura which is part of a big building complex was given on monthly rent of Rs. 10/- to the petitioner by Sri Thakur Kishori Ramanji Mahraj, respondent No. 3 in this petition. An application was filed by Rajesh Kumar, respondent No. 2 in this petition under section 16 of the Act for allotment of the premises on the ground that the tenant had removed his effects from the premises in dispute. The Rent control Inspector made an inspection of the premises on 25. 8. 1985 and submitted his report mentioning therein that the tenant was in possession of the premises and articles were kept in the premises. Various affidavits were also filed by the parties. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer also inspected the premises on 30. 7. 1986 after giving notice to the Counsel for both the parties. In the inspection report dated 31. 7. 1988 submitted by him it has been mentioned that at the time of the inspection neither the tenant nor his Counsel was present and, therefore, it appeared that the tenant had removed his effects. An objection was filed by the tenant to the aforesaid inspection report mentioning therein that he had not received any information from the Court regarding the inspection and nor his Counsel had intimated him about any such inspection and that the inference drawn by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his report dated 31. 7. 1986 that since the tenant or his Counsel was not present it must be presumed that the tenant had removed his effects, was not correct. It was further stated that the tenant had gone to the District Hospital in connection with the operation of his wife and that the inspection was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). It was further stated that the tenant had gone to the District Hospital in connection with the operation of his wife and that the inspection was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). He further asserted that he had not removed his effects from the premises in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 24. 12. 1987 declared vacancy under section 12 of the Act as he had kept the goods of Khandelwal Jan sabha which was not a member of his family in the premises that had been allotted to him. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inspection carried by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 30,7. 1986 was contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules and that in any view of the matter, the premises could not have been declared vacant under section 12 of the Act merely because the tenant had kept certain belongings of the Khandelwal Jan Sabha in the premises. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer does not suffer from any illegality. He further submitted that even if the inspection was carried out in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and had also filed his objections and so no prejudice was caused to him and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Lachhman Prasad Richaria v. IV Additional District Judge, Hamirpur and others, 1990 1 ARC 497. ( 5 ) I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the tenant had come out with a specific case that his household things were kept in the tenanted premises and it was never used for commercial purposes, he had also come out with a specific case that along with his household articles, the articles belonging to the Khandelwal Jan sabha were also kept in the premises in dispute and that he had not removed his effects. The report dated 19. 5. The report dated 19. 5. 1985 submitted by the Rent Control Inspector clearly mentions that the tenant was in possession of the premises in dispute and that his articles were kept. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his order dated 24. 12. 1987 has placed reliance upon the ex parte inspection report dated 31. 7. 1986 submitted by the earlier Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In the said report only an inference has been drawn by the Rent Control and eviction Officer that since the tenant or his Counsel was not present on the date of inspection it should be presumed that the tenant had removed his effects. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the impugned order has also observed that since the articles of Khandelwal Jan Sabha were kept in the premises in dispute, deemed vacancy has arisen since the tenant had allowed the premises to be occupied by a person who was not a member of the family. As noticed above, the specific case that was taken by the tenant was that his household articles were kept in the premises in dispute and certain articles belonging to the Khandelwal Jan Sabha were also kept in the premises in dispute. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the tenant had removed his effects from the premises in dispute and had allowed it to be occupied by a person who was not a member of his family. The finding to the contrary recorded by the Rent control and Eviction Officer cannot, therefore, be sustained. ( 7 ) IT is, therefore, not necessary to examine as to whether the provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules had been violated or not. The order dated 24. 12. 1987 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is, therefore, set aside. The rent Control and Eviction Officer shall pass a fresh Order in accordance with law. However, as the inspection that was carried out on 30. 7. 1986 was ex parte the Rent Control and Eviction Officer may consider this feasibility of causing a fresh inspection of the premises after giving due notice to the parties. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition Allowed. .