Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 stated that despite repeated information, he has not received instruction. No one has put in appearance on before of respondent no.3 despite service of notice. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent no.1 is present. 2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 08.05.2006 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") declaring vacancy in dispute shop on the ground that petitioner-tenant has failed to prove that he entered into possession of property in dispute as a tenant on 12.5.1976 or before 5.7.1976 and therefore, his possession on the shop in question is wholly unauthorized since it was without any letter of allotment, therefore there is deemed vacancy in the accommodation in question under Section 12 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accommodation in question was vacated on 12.5.1976 by petitioner's brother and immediately thereafter possession was handed over to the petitioner in respect whereto an agreement/rent deed was executed by petitioner with one Sri Baijnath, brother of respondent no.2, the landlord of shop in dispute and the landlord recognizing the said tenancy accepted rent from the petitioner. The rent receipts of 1976 i.e. dated 21.10.1976 and 2.12.1976, besides subsequent receipts were also placed before RCEO but he had declined to consider petitioner's possession on the shop in question since 12.5.1976 on the ground that mere fact that receipts were issued by landlord in October, 1976 and onwards does not mean that petitioner's tenancy with the consent of landlord commenced on 12.5.1976. 4. 4. It is really surprising that in absence of any other agreement or consent tendered by landlord-respondent no.2 except Annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby landlord also recognized the petitioner has his tenant and his possession over property in dispute from 12.5.1976, which fact has not been found false or incorrect by any other document or evident on record, the Court below has simply declined to recognize aforesaid document on the ground that deed dated 12.5.1976 was executed between the petitioner and brother of the respondent no.2 though the said deed was not disputed or disowned by respondent no.2 himself and hence it cannot be said that petitioner's possession on the property in dispute from 12.5.1976 was not proved. The findings recorded by respondent no.1 is patently and apparently perverse and shows that he has declined to consider relevant material on record for invalid and irrelevant reasons. The impugned order, therefore, cannot sustain. 5. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08th May, 2006 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by RCEO is hereby set aside. _____________