A sub-tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and is deemed to be an authorised tenant.

A. N. Varma, J.

1. This petition is directed against two orders, one passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad dated 24.8.1978 allotting the premises in dispute to the respondents Nos. 3 and 5, and the other 4.4.1979 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners against the former order. The facts relevant for the determination of the case as found by the Courts below are that an accommodation bearing No. 68 Akhara Man Khan Allahabad, of seven rooms, was allotted to Sudhir Chandra Buxi, the respondent No. 5 herein, by an order of allotment dated 30.1.1979. Sub sequently, Sudhir Chandra Buxi let out three rooms to Rajendra Nath Tewari, petitioner No. 1, and two rooms to Mahendra Prasad Srlvastava, petitioner No. 2. It has been found that the subletting by Sudhir Chandra Buxi was with the consent of the landlord. The subletting in the case of both the petitioners took place prior to the coming into force of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972). Years later, Naresh Chandra, respondent No. 3 filed an application for allotment of the afore said premises by means of an application dated 31.8.1976 on the ground that the premises were liable to be deemed vacant under Section 12 (1) (b) of the aforesaid Act in as much as the tenant-in-chief Sudhir Chandra Buxi had sublet the premises to the petitioners, who were not the members of his family. Upon this application, an inquiry was caused to be made into the question whether or not, there was a deemed vacancy. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report which confirmed the aforesaid facts. On the receipt of the report, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the premises occupied by the petitioners vacant by an order dated 19.12.1977 and the notice regarding the same was issued to the petitioners. In response to the notice, the petitioners filed objections stating that they were in occupation of the premises with the consent of the landlord as his tenants. It was further claimed by the petitioners on the basis of these facts that in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the aforesaid, the petitioners were liable to be deemed to be in lawful occupation of the premises as authorised tenants thereto. The building in question was, therefore, not liable to be deemed to be vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the petitioners were not tenants directly from the landlord but they were sub-tenants of Sudhir Chandra Buxi and that in as much as the petitioners were not members of the family of Sudhir Chandra Buxi, the premises were liable to be deemed vacant under Section 12 (1) (b) of the said Act. That being so, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order dated 24.8.78 allotting the premises to respondent No. 3. Against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the petitioners filed a revision but without any success. Hence this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if it be assumed that the petitioners were sub-tenants, and not tenants directly from the owner and landlord of the premises, on the finding that the occupation of the petitioners or their continuance as sub-tenants had the consent of the owner and landlord, the petitioners were entitled to be deemed to be authorised tenants of the premises under Section 14 of the Act. Counsel for the respondent-allottee on the other hand urged that on the finding that the petitioners had been inducted into the premises by the tenant-in-chief without the permission of the District Magistrate and on the further finding that the petitioners were not the members of the family of the tenant-in- chief, the premises were liable to be deemed vacant under Section 12 (1) (b). It was submitted that the acceptance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners would lead to an anomalous position. For on the one he