S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 13th August 1977 passed in revision.
(2.) AN application was made for release by the Petitioner on the ground that there was deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Act No. XIII of 1972 -hereinafter referred to as the Act. The prescribed authority held the property to be deemed vacant and released the property in favour of the Petitioner. The tenant filed a revision. This revision was allowed on 13th August, 1977. The revisional court came to the conclusion that there was no deemed vacancy in the eye of law and as such the release application cannot be allowed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the property in dispute was kept locked and as such the view taken by the revisional court that there is no deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act is manifestly erroneous.
(3.) I have examined the judgment of the revisional court. In my opinion the view taken by the revisional court is correct. By the mere fact that the shop is locked it cannot be taken to be deemed vacant within the meaning of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. It may be that the tenant may not be able to carry on business, for some time for certain reasons. Merely on the basis of this fact it cannot be held that the shop should be deemed vacant. It has to be categorically proved by the Petitioner that the tenant has substantially removed his effects from the property in dispute. The revisional court has found that there is no such evidence on record. In the circumstances the view taken by the revisional court that the shop cannot be deemed vacant is correct and does not call for any interference by this Court.;