JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was allotted shop no. 85-T (new no. 85/3), Swami Ghat, Mathura in 1971 and was running a business of hosiery at the relevant time from the disputed shop. The respondent no. 2 made an application for allotment on the ground that the petitioner had vacated the disputed shop. Upon his application, a report dated 18.1.1997 was submitted by the Inspector showing that the brother of the petitioner was found running the shop. 3. Upon notice, the petitioner filed his affidavit and affidavits of his witness to prove that, in fact he was the allottee and his brother was only helping him. After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller, dismissed the objection of the petitioner and notified the vacancy vide order dated 15.11.1994. The petitioner filed an application for review which has also been rejected vide order dated 28.1.1999. Both the orders are under challenge in these proceedings. 4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Rent Controller had erred in law in holding the vacancy merely on the basis that at the time of inspection, his younger brother was looking after the shop and it totally ignored the allotment order, the rent receipts, electricity connection, cashmemos, bills or purchase of goods for the shop, which all were in the name of the petitioner without there being any evidence to the contrary. 5. There is no worthwhile evidence to show that except for the time of inspection, the brother of the petitioner was seen exclusively running the shop. In a case of deemed vacancy in regard to non-residential building, it has to be proved that the tenant has admitted a person as a partner or a new partner who is not a member of his family. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has failed to point out any iota of evidence to show that the brother of the petitioner was admitted as a partner. Voluminous evidence in the nature of bills, cashmemos, electricity bills, rent receipts etc. lead to the only conclusion that the petitioner was the tenant and his brother was only helping him to run the shop. Apart from that, there is nothing on record to show that the notices were ever sent to the landlord which is otherwise mandatory under rule 8. lead to the only conclusion that the petitioner was the tenant and his brother was only helping him to run the shop. Apart from that, there is nothing on record to show that the notices were ever sent to the landlord which is otherwise mandatory under rule 8. It is apparent that the finding of the Rent Controller is perverse and based on no evidence. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 15.11.1994 and 28.1.1999 is hereby quashed. 8. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to cost.