DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the tenants for quashing the order dated 24th May, 1995 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh. ( 2 ) THE landlord had filed an application under section 16 (1) (b) of the u. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) for release of the premises as deemed vacancy under section 12 of the Act had occurred since the tenants had illegally allowed it to be occupied by one Sri Thakur Das. A report dated 22nd september, 1978 was submitted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ultimately the application filed by the landlord was rejected by the Rent control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 21st September, 1979 holding that vacancy had not arisen. This order was challenged by the landlord by filing a Revision, which was allowed by the order dated 5th April, 1980 and the matter was remanded. The tenants filed Writ Petition No. 6317 of 1980 to challenge the order passed in the Revision and by the judgment and order dated 10th January, 1984, the petition was dismissed and it was observed that the rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide the matter in accordance with the remand order dated 5th April, 1980. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after remand, by the order dated 24th May, 1985 declared vacancy. It is this order dated 24th May, 1965, that has been impugned in the present writ petition, ( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Control and eviction Officer had remanded the matter for decision on two matters namely whether there was any electric connection in the house of Sri Thakur Das and whether the report of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was correct or not and this is also what has been observed by this Court in the judgment and order dated. 10th January, 2004, but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not given any specific findings on these two matters. 10th January, 2004, but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not given any specific findings on these two matters. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that from the evidence on record it was clear that there was no electric connection in the house of Sri Thakur Das and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He further submitted that the report submitted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was correct. ( 6 ) I have carefully perused the order passed by the Rent Control and eviction Officer. It is clear that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not recorded any specific finding as to whether there was any electric connection existed in the house of Sri Thakur Das and nor is there any specific finding regarding the correctness of the report submitted by the Rent Control and Eviction officer. In such circumstances, the order dated 24th May, 1985 is liable to be set aside and matter is required to be remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the remand order. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 24th May, 1985 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is set aside. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall pass a fresh order in accordance with the remand order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by either of the parties before him. Petition Allowed. .