Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 14.3.1989, whereby he has declared the shop in question as vacant. Respondent No. 3 purchased the disputed shop by registered sale deed on 1st July 1982 from the erstwhile owner. The application was filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer asked the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted the report that the shops in question were found locked of which Shyam Bihari Lal Sharma was the tenant and Smt. Manju Sarin, respondent No. 3, is the landlady.
(2.) THE petitioner filed objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that he never removed his effects from the disputed shop. He was carrying on the business of Bakery. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner had a licence for Bakery business but the petitioner has not shown that the licence for Bakery was extended/renewed and as the petitioner failed to prove that she was carrying on the business, it shall be deemed that the accommodation became vacant under law. It was found that subsequently on the proceedings being initiated the tenant -petitioner had opened a restaurant. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard Shri Rajesh Tandon and Shri R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(3.) SECTION 12(1)(a) of the Act provides that a landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if he has substantially removed his effects therefrom and clause (b) provides that such tenant has allowed to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. Sub -section (2) of Section 12 provides that in case of a non -residential building, where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. Respondent No. 1 proceeded on the basis that the Rent Control Inspector found the shop as locked. Mere fact that the shop was found locked will itself not indicate that the petitioner has removed his effects from the disputed shop. Secondly, even if a person has not been able to carry on business for some time, there is no presumption that the effects of the shop have been removed. The petitioner was admittedly in possession of the shop. In absence of any findings that she had removed his effects with an intention to vacate the shop, the accommodation cannot be treated as vacant.;