JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 24.9.1992 and 6.11.2000 by which both the courts below have declared vacancy of the disputed accommodation and released it in favour of the respondent landlord. 3. The respondent landlord filed an application under Section 12/6 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for declaring the disputed shop as vacant and for release inter alia with the allegation that Ninumal was the original tenant of the disputed accommodation and on his death, his two sons Satya Narain and Ashok Kumar became joint tenants.? Ashok Kumar acquired a shop and a residential accommodation and thus in view of Section 12 of the Act the shop was deemed vacant and since the landlord acquired for its personal use, the same may be released. After obtaining a report from the Inspector and after hearing the parties the Rent Controller found that it was a case of deemed vacancy and considering the need of the landlord it allowed the release application also. The said order has been affirmed in revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that even though Ashok Kumar, one of the joint tenants had acquired a shop and a residential building, since the case related to a non residential building, it would not be a case of deemed vacancy in view of sub Section 2 of Section 12. He has further urged that sub clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 12 would not apply to commercial building. 5. It is admitted to the petitioner that his brother after becoming joint tenant had acquired a shop and a residential building. Section 12 of the Act deals with deemed vacancy of building in certain cases. Clause (1) of section 12 reads as under:- "12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases- (1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof 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." 6. A bare perusal of the provision shows that sub-clauses (a) & (b) apply to both residential and non-residential buildings while clause (c) deals with residential building. Sub section 2 of section 12 reads as under: "(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 a partner or a new partern, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building." 7. It envisages vacancy where a tenant of a non-residential building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner. 8. In the present case, as is evident from the facts noted above, the landlord claimed that the vacancy occurred due to the fact that Ashok Kumar, a joint tenant had acquired residential and non-residential premises. It is a case of joint tenancy and even if one of them acquires an alternative residential or commercial accommodation, it would amount to the tenant removing his substantial effect from the tenanted premises and would be deemed vacant in view of sub-clause (a) of clause 1 of section 12. Since it is admitted that Ashok Kumar has acquired both residential and non-residential premises, it would be a case of deemed vacancy and both the courts below were justified in holding as such. 9. No other point has been urged. 10. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.