JUDGMENT

R. B. MISRA , J. :—The present appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 27th of March, 1979 centres round a shop No. 270 situate , in Grouceganj, Bulandshahr. This shop was owned by Ratan Lal and Naubat Singh was a tenant of the shop Naubat Singh died on 31st of August, 1974. He had no male issue but had four daughters, all of whom were married and were residing with their husbands outside Bulandshahr. He also left behind is widow who was residing in village Rampur, district Bulandshahr. He was carrying on some business in the disputed shop during his lifetime. On his death Ratan Lal, the landlord, filed an application under S. 12 read with S. 16 of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of letting, rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 (for short reffered to herinafter as the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for a declaration that the shop was vacant and he required the same for his personal need.

2. The application was resisted by Jaspal Singh, the present appellant, on the ground that he was the heir of Naubat Singh deceased and was in occupation of the disputed shop; that on 4th of July 1973 Naubat Singh before his death executed a will conveying all his rights and properties including the tenancy rights in the disputed shop to him; that he had been helping Naubat Singh in his business for the last several years and remained in continuous possession of the disputed shop after the death of Naubat Singh and so he was entitled to get the benefit of S. 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application holding that Jaspal Singh, the appellant, had been living with the deceased Naubat Singh and was also assisting him in doing the business in the disputed premises to the full knowledge of the landlord, and so he was entitled to get the tenancy rights under S. 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as it stood prior to its amendment made by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976.

4. Feeling aggrieved the landlord preferred a revision before the District Judge, Bulandshahr, which was transferred to the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same on 8th of July, 1976. He, however, did not agree with the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that Jaspal Singh was entitled to the benefit of original S. 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but since even after the death of Naubat Singh, on 31st of August 1974 Jaspal Singh had been permitted to continue in possession of the premises he got the benefit of amended S. 14, as amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976.

5. Undaunted by his failures, the landlord filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the two authorities below. The High Court endorsed the finding of the Additional District Judge that Jaspal Singh could not get the benefit of the unamended S. 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 inasmuch as on the date immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, i. e., on 14th July, 1972 Naubat Singh was very much alive and admittedly he was the tenant of the premises in question and as such no question of regularisation of Jaspal Singh as tenant could arise. The High Court also held that Jaspal Singh was not even entitled to get the benefit of the amended S. 14 as it stood amended by the U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, which came into force on 5th of July, 1976. According to the High Court the benefit of amended S. 14 would be available to Jaspal Singh, the appellant, only when he was living in the premises with the consent of the landlord provided that no proceedings for his eviction were pending. The landlord, however, in the instant case immediately after the death of Naubat Singh started the proceedings for the release of the premises in 1974. The High Court took exception to the assumption of the learned Additional District Judge regarding the consent of the landlord. According to the High Court consent of the landlord cannot be assumed or presumed, it must be proved as a fact but