JUDGMENT

S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition pertains to declaration of vacancy u/s 12(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. XIII of 1972 in respect of non-residential accommodation and its subsequent release in favour of the owners. The fact about which either there is no dispute between the parties or stand proved may first be stated.

2. Admittedly opposite parties 3 and 4 Radhe Lal and Smt. Kaushalya are landlord and landlady of the shop in dispute. Again admittedly the Petitioner Hakeem Agha Mohd. Afsar Shirazi was the tenant of the said shop on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4. The Petitioner carried on his profession of a Hakeem in the said premises. On 16-5-78 Annexure No. 1, opposite parties 3 and 4 moved an application before the District Supply Officer, Rent Control, Lucknow, opposite-party No. 1 u/s 16(1) for the release of the shop in their favour. In this application it was stated that the Petitioner had taken up a shop on rent at Hathipur District Lakhimpur Kheri and had "substantially removed" his effects from the said shop to the tenanted shop at Lakhimpur Kheri five days ago. Again it was stated in paragraph 5 that the shop in dispute was "practically" lying vacant under the lock and key of the Petitioner who was negotiating with persons to get good premium for the shop. On these facts it was stated that the shop in question is vacant u/s 12 of the Act and is available for release to the landlords. On 5-6-78, Annexure C-l to the counter affidavit, the Inspector, Rent Control, submitted his report. At the time of his inspection the shop was closed and he could not inspect the shop internally. He, however, made enquiries from certain persons and came to the conclusion that the shop was lying locked for the last several months and the shop was, therefore, vacant. He, however, recommended that notice be issued to the Petitioner in order to obtain his version. On 1-7-78 the Petitioner's brother Masood Agha lodged First Information Report at Police Station Hasanganj at 8-20 A.M. to the effect that the opposite parties with the assistance and active connivance of certain persons had broken open the lock of shop in dispute and taken illegal possession thereof as also of the goods lying in the shop. On 2-7-78 at 11-20 A.M. another First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Hasanganj by the Petitioner himself complaining of the same act about which the compliant had been made by Masood Agha. On 6-7-78, Annexure II, the Petitioner filed objection against the release application of the landlords. On 17-10-78 the opposite parties filed their reply to the Petitioner's objection. The opposite parties invited the attention of the District Supply Officer to their application for release dated 6-5-78 and reiterated the facts stated in the said application. It was further stated in paragraph 5 of the reply that' the Petitioner had given vacant possession of the shop in question to opposite party No. 3 on 29th June, 1978. It was further stated that no almirah much less several almriahs belonging to the Petitioner were there in the shop in question. In support of their case the landlord-opposite parties filed affidavits of Tulsi Ram Saxena, Chakravarty Rajgopala Charya Tiwari, Advocate and one of the landlords namely Radhe Lal. In all these affidavits it was stated that the Petitioner carried on his business in the shop in dispute up to about 1st week of May, 1978 and thereafter all the effects in the shop were removed from there, keeping the shop under the lock and key of the Petitioner and thereafter on 29th June, 1978 the Petitioner handed over vacant possession of the shop to Radhe Lal, one of the landlords. The Petitioner did not file any affidavit of any person living in the locality but he filed his won affidavit. There is some controversy with regard to filing of this affidavit. On behalf of the opposite parties, landlords, it was asserted that the affidavit was not fil