The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the merger of interest of landlord and tenant, as well as the implications of becoming a co-owner of the property on the regularization of tenancy.

( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 3 to 10 Smt. Padmawati and Ors. filed a release application in respect of building in dispute which is a shop under Section 12/16 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In the release application it was stated that M/s Kesarmal Mohanlal and Shri Mohan Lal who were the tenants of the shop in dispute had sublet the shop to petitioners Vijay Kumar and Krishna Kumar. In the release application initialy petitioners were not impleaded as parties. However, they appeared in the said proceedings and stated that they were the valid tenants of the shop in dispute. Petitioners prayed for regularization of their tenancy. In the release application respondents 11 to 22 were impleaded as opposite parties and it was stated that they were co-owners but had no interest in being impleaded as applicants in the release application. In the release application the need set up was for Sushil Kumar Gupta - respondent No. 7. It was also stated therein that respondents 11 to 22 had no objection to the release of the shop in dispute to Sri Sushil Kumar Gupta. The case was registered before R. C. and E. O. /d. S. O. , Saharanpur as Case petitioners tenancy stood regularized and they could not be termed as unauthorized occupants. Consequently release application was rejected by order dated 26. 2. 1979. Copy of the said order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Against the said order rent control revision No. 145 of 1975 was filed" which was allowed by A. D. J. , Saharanpur on 4. 2. 1980 and matter was remanded to R. C. and E. O. to decide release application on merit. Copy of the said order has not been annexed. Against the said order of the revisional Court petitioners "filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 4573 of 1980. The said writ petition was decided through judgment dated 2. 2. 1984 copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said judgment dated 2. 2. 1984 it was observed that revisional Court had held that petitioners plea that they were partners in the firm which had previously been the tenant of the property in dispute was not established hence their possession could not be regularized under Section 14 of the Act. In the said judgment it was also observed that from the judgment of the revisional Court it was clear that during the pendency of the revision petitioners purchased a share in the property in dispute from the other co-owners of the property. Petitioners had purchased 1/22 share from one-of the co-owners i. e. respondent No. 15 Vidyawati. This High Court in the earlier judgment held that once petitioners became co-owners of the property in suit no application under Section 14 of the Act would he at their instance. Consequently it was observed that writ petition had become infructuous. However by the ultimate order it was directed that:-The application for release which is still pending has to be considered on merit treating the shop as vacant.

( 2 ) IT is difficult to reconcile the two findings recorded in the earlier judgment of this Court. On the one hand it was held that petitioners having purchased a share of one of the co-owners of the property became co-owner hence there was no question of regularization of tenancy on the other hand the matter was remanded for consideration of release application filed by respondents 3 to 10 for the benefit of Sushil Kumar- respondent No. 7. After decision of the earlier writ petition r. C. and E. O. on 25. 8,1982 allowed the release application filed by respondents 3 to 10 and released the shop in dispute for being used by respondent No. 7. Against the said order petitioners filed rent control revision No. 441 of 1982 which was dismissed by llnd A. D. J. , saharanpur through judgment and order dated 11. 1. 1985 hence this writ petition.

( 3 ) IT is always safer to see as to what the Court has done than what the Court has said. In the earlier judgment of this Court the ultimate direction was for consideration of releas