The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish occupation as a licensee or a tenant with the consent of the landlord to claim the benefit of regularisation under Section 14 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act.

Shop nos. 65 and 66 situate in Mohalla Danganj, Khurja, District Bulandshahr are the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition. The respondent nos. 3 and 4, who are husband and wife after purchasing the said shops by means of a registered sale deed dated 11-3-1977 from Sri Ram Narain Gaur, Advocate, applied for release of the said shops under Section 12 read with Section 16 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground that the said shops are lying vacant and they have been delivered possession by the erstwhile tenant on 22-4-1977, the shops be released in their favour as they have no other shop in the market to sell the rice manufactured by them and have purchased the shops in dispute for their bonafide need. In support of the said application, the erstwhile tenant, Hukum Chand also filed an application dated 22-4-1977 stating that he has handed over the possession to them. A report from the Rent Control Inspector was called for on the said application for release, who vide his report dated 10-6- 1977 submitted that Amar Nath Sharma the petitioner herein, is claiming his possession over the disputed shops since the year 1961 and according to him Sri Hukum Chand was the tenant for names sake.

The petitioner claims himself as a tenant of the disputed shops, also filed an application dated 10-7- 1979 under Section 14 of the said Act on the ground that he is in possession since the year 1961 and is carrying on the business in commission agency of sale of foodgrains and oil seeds in his own rights. Further, it has been stated therein that he was a Munim in the firm M/s Makhan Lal Hukum Chand who closed their business in the year 1961 and the applicant i. e. the petitioner herein, is continuing in occupation as a tenant since then and his occupation was always with the consent of the landlord who has been receiving rent from him regularly. His possession stood regularised on the commencement of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. An objection to the said application was filed by the contesting respondents no. 3 and 4, the purchasers and the landlords on the ground that Amar Nath Sharma who was a Munim in the firm M/s Makhan Lal Hukum Chand has not carried on any business in his own account from the shops in question. He carried on the work of Munim of the tenant

Makhan Lal Hukum Chand. The said case further finds corroboration from the fact that it is Hukum Chand Industry who applied for and was granted licence from Mandi Samiti since the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 through Amar Nath Sharma Manager of Hukum Chand Industry, signed by Amar Nath Sharma.

A dispute thus arose between the parties with regard to the status and nature of possession, if any, of the petitioner over the shops in question. The petitioner applied for regularisation of his possession under Section 14 of the Act and claimed himself to be a tenant since before the commencement of the said Act while the case of the respondents landlords, on the other hand, was that it was Hukum Chand who was the tenant and he continued to be so and the petitioner was a Munim and as such, he could not acquire the status as that of a tenant. The parties led evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their respective cases. The respondent no. 2, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer/ Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khurja by the impugned order held that the possession of the petitioner could not be regularised as he was not in occupation of the disputed shops on the relevant date "as a tenant" with the "consent of the landlord". He was working as a Manager in the firm of the erstwhile tenant Hukum Chand and as such, the possession of the petitioner cannot be regularised under the aforesaid Section. Consequently it, by the impugned order dated 1-7-1981 di