Ratan Lal, the petitioner was the owner of shop No. 270 situated in Grouceganj, Bulandshahar of which one Naubat Singh was the tenant. He died on 31st August, 1974 leaving behind four daughters, all married and residing with their husbands outside Bulandshahar. He had also left his widow, who was residing in village Rampur district Bulandshahar. Thus, there was no heir of the deceased Naubat Singh who was capable of doing business in the shop.

On the death of Naubat Singh, Ratan Lal, the petitioner filed an appli cation under Section 12/16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972") for declaring that the shop was vacant and for release of the same on the ground of personal requirement.

The application was contested by Jaspal Singh, respondent No. 3 on the ground that he was the heir of the deceased Naubat Singh and was in occupa tion and possession of the shop in that capacity. He claimed that before his death on 4-7-1973, the deceased Naubat Singh had executed a will convey ing all his rights and properties including the tenancy right to the said respondent. He further alleged that he had been helping Naubat Singh in his business for the last several years and as he continued to remain in possession of the shop after the death of Naubat Singh, he was entitled to get the benefit of Section 14 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

On 20-6-1975 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the appli cation and held that as respondent No. 3 had been living with the deceased Naubat Singh and was also assisting him in doing the business in the premises in dispute, he was entitled to get the tenancy rights of the premises in dispute under Section 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (as it stood before amend ment made by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 ). According to his finding, the respondent No. 3 was in possession of the premises on 15th July, 1972 of which the landlord had full knowledge.

Aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the Landlord preferred a revision before the District Judge, Bulandshahar. This was transferred to the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same on 8-7- 1977. The Learned Additional District Judge, however, did not agree with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the respondent. No. 3 was entitled to the benefit of original Section 14 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but he held that since even after the death of Naubat Singh, on 31st August, 1974, respondent No. 3 had been permitted to continue in possession of the premises, he could get the benefit of amended Section 14, amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the landlord had preferred the present writ petition.

The question that needs consideration is whether respondent No. 3 was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of U. P. Act No 13 of 1972. Section 14, as it originally stood provided that any person in possession of a building, on the date immediately before the commencement of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, with the consent of the landlord against whom no proceeding for eviction was pending, was entitled to get his tenancy regularised under this section. In the instant case, Naubat Singh, the tenant was, admittedly, alive, when this Act came into force. There was no dispute about his tenancy rights in 1972. As such, there was no question of respondent No. 3 getting or acquiring any right of a tenant over the head of Naubat Singh. Naubat Singh was occupying the shop in his own right as a tenant. Hence simply because respondent No. 3 was found helping Naubat Singh in his business that could not entitle him to get rights of a tenant. Under Section 14, the rights which are capable of being regularised are of a person who has occupied a building as a tenant, but since respondent No. 3 was not occupying the premises as a tenant, there was no question of his getting the benefit