S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) LIST revised. Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents. This wit petition is directed against order dated 3.12.1985 passed by R.C. and E.O./D.S.O., Saharanpur in Case No. 209/83. Ajeet Kumar Kahela v. Narendra Kumar Sharma, declaring vacancy of the accommodation in dispute which is in the form of a room. The ground taken in the impugned order for declaring vacancy is that at some point of time Nanak and Nanku were tenants of the accommodation in dispute and that landlord was employed in Haryana hence he could not reside in Saharanpur where accommodation in dispute is situate. No period of time has been mentioned in the impugned order during which those two persons i.e. Nanak and Nanku were tenants and when they vacated the accommodation in dispute. The other ground taken by R.C. and E.O. is also not tenable. Even if a landlord is employed in another city he may keep some of his goods in his house. This cannot result in vacancy.
(2.) IN the impugned order reliance has been placed upon the report of H.C.I., and affidavits filed in another case being Case No. 89/83, Jagdish Prasad v. Narendra Kumar Sharma. That case was decided in favour of the landlord on 16.1.1984 copy of which is Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The R.C. and E.O. did not take into consideration the said decision given either by himself or his predecessor. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside.;