JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal,J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Case No.14/14/22/29/13 whereby the vacancy in respect of the shop situated on the ground floor of House No.332/5-A, Gole Darwaja Chowk, Lucknow has been declared under Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act"). 2. The facts in brief are that the opposite parties no.2 to 6 purchased the property in dispute in the year 2003 from Shri Nikhil Kapoor. The release application was filed by them under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act on 11.12.2008 before the R.C.E.O., Lucknow. It was stated in the release application that the shop in question was in the tenancy of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.68.75 in which he was doing business of selling clothes in the name and style of M/s. Radheshyam Hari Shyam. It was further stated that the petitioner has moved his effects from the shop in question and has handed over its possession to Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal, who is not his family member. Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal has started his own business of chicken in the said shop under the name and style of Krishna Enterprises. 3. Upon filing of the release application, the R.C.E.O. directed the property to be inspected as provided under the Rules framed under the Act. The Tehsildar (Judicial), Lucknow inspected the property and submitted his report on 06.08.2009 indicating that that no one was found in the shop in question as the same was found closed. He further mentioned in the report that Shri Ram Narain Khanna told him that Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal is carrying on business with his associates in the name of Krishna Enterprises. Learned R.C.E.O. on the basis of the aforesaid report issued notice to the parties and the petitioner on the receipt of the notice filed his objection stating therein that the shop in question was still in his possession and he has either vacated the shop nor has given its possession to any person. It was also mentioned in the objection that the shop was inspected on 06.08.2009 which fell on Thursday and the Chowk Market remains closed on Thursday. It was also mentioned in the objection that the shop was inspected on 06.08.2009 which fell on Thursday and the Chowk Market remains closed on Thursday. It was also stated in the objection that the business in the name of Krishna Enterprises is going on in the shop in question, which is registered firm having the petitioner and his two sons as partners. The petitioner also moved an application for re-inspection of the shop in question which was allowed on 02.06.2012. The Tehsildar (Judicial), Lucknow again inspected the shop on 07.08.2012 and submitted his second report indicating therein that at the time of his inspection the shop was found opened and the business of chicken garment was going on. The petitioner was present in shop. It was also mentioned in the report that the petitioner informed that the shop was being looked after by his sons while he carries of business in the adjacent shop. The petitioner also handed over the documents in respect of the registration of the firm, electricity bill, etc. to the Tehsildar. A notice was also issued to Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal, who in pursuance of the notice appeared before the R.C.E.O. and filed his objection on 20.11.2012. It was specifically stated by him on oath that he had no concern with the disputed shop and the same was in occupation of the petitioner. The learned R.C.E.O., however, by means of the impugned order declared the vacancy on the ground that the petitioner has vacated the shop in question and handed over its possession to Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal, who is not a member of his family. 4. I have heard Shri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Srivastava, who has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties no. 2 to 6 and have also gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the R.C.E.O. declaring the vacancy is against the material on record. The second report of the Rent Control Officer dated 07.08.2012 clearly discloses that the shop was found opened at the time of inspection and the petitioner, who was present in the adjacent shop came and stated before the Inspector that his sons were carrying on business in the said shop. The second report of the Rent Control Officer dated 07.08.2012 clearly discloses that the shop was found opened at the time of inspection and the petitioner, who was present in the adjacent shop came and stated before the Inspector that his sons were carrying on business in the said shop. He also handed over to the Inspector the relevant documents relating to the shop showing that the business was being carried out in the name of Krishna Enterprises in which he himself along with his sons was a partner. It is not disputed that Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal the alleged unauthorized occupant was not found anywhere either in the shop in question or in any nearby shops. He also filed his own affidavit clearly stating on oath that in the shop in question, the petitioner has been carrying on business along with his sons in the name of M/s. Krishna Enterprises and he has no concern with the said shop. He further stated in Para-5 of his affidavit that he is carrying on business in a shop situated in Chowk under the name of M/s. Agarwal and Company which has no concern with the firm of the petitioner. Learned R.C.E.O. inspite of there being sufficient material on record, ignored the same and passed the impugned order declaring the vacancy merely on presumption that the petitioner has removed his effects from the shop in question and has handed over its possession to Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards the registration certificate of the firm, the receipts showing the deposit of amount towards the rent deposited in the Bank as well as electricity bills showing that the electricity connection is in the name of the petitioner and bills upto September, 2013 have been paid and there is absolutely no document and oral evidence to show that Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal has any connection with the shop in question but learned R.C.E.O. passed the impugned order ignoring the said documents and presuming that the petitioner after vacating the shop has handed over its possession to Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal. 6. Shri Anurag Srivastava, who has appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite parties no. 6. Shri Anurag Srivastava, who has appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite parties no. 2 to 6 has filed the counter affidavit and has argued that the petitioner has already vacated the shop and has given the possession thereof to a person, who is not his family member and as such the shop shall be deemed to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act. He further submits that from the second report of Rent Control Officer, it is clear that at the time of inspection, the petitioner was not present in the shop and the shop was opened. The petitioner instead was present in the adjacent shop in which he was carrying on business of selling gold and silver ornaments and on getting information that the shop was being inspected, he immediately came to the shop in question just for the sake of showing that he was carrying on business. Thus, the learned R.C.E.O. has not committed any illegality in recording a finding that the petitioner has already vacated the shop in question and Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal was in possession thereof. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 to 6 has further argued that notice was served upon Shri Anubhav Agarwal, who is the son of Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal at the address of the shop in question, which prima-facie, suggests that the shop was in occupation of Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal. Thus, the order declaring the vacancy is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings, one thing is clear that when the shop was first inspected, the same was found locked. When it was inspected the second time, Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal was not found there. Merely by showing the acknowledgment receipt indicating that the notice was received by Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal at the address of the disputed shop, does not make out a sufficient ground to believe that the petitioner has vacated the shop. Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal has filed his personal affidavit before the learned R.C.E.O. stating on oath that he has no concern when the shop in question. Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal has filed his personal affidavit before the learned R.C.E.O. stating on oath that he has no concern when the shop in question. Moreover, the documents provided to the Rent Control Officer at the time of inspection and filed before this Hon'ble Court, prima-facie, show that the business of the petitioner is registered under the name of M/s. Krishna Enterprises and its rent has been deposited till December, 2013. The registration certificate of the firm further indicates that the firm has three partners in which one of the partners is the petitioner himself and two other partners are his sons. The electricity bill in the name of the petitioner has also been placed on record, which further indicates that the electricity bill upto 2013 has been paid by the petitioner himself. There is no document on record contrary to the aforesaid documents which may indicate that Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal was in any way connected with the business of the petitioner or the shop in question. Learned R.C.E.O. has not considered the documents referred to above or the affidavit of Shri Trilok Chandra Agarwal while passing the impugned order. 8. In view of above, the order passed by the learned R.C.E.O. declaring the vacancy in respect of the shop in question is an order, which has been passed ignoring the material on record and as such the same is liable to be set aside. Consequently the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 07.11.2013 declaring the vacancy of the shop in question situated at House No.332/5-A, Gole Darwaja Chowk, Lucknow is set aside. It is directed that the learned R.C.E.O. shall again proceed to decide the controversy after going through the material on record and also after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce any other evidence if they want to adduce and then pass order accordingly to law.