Admission of a partner after the enforcement of the Act, who is not a member of the family, is a ground for declaration of vacancy under Section 12 (2) of the Act, but the proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time.

SUDHIR Narain, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated!4-12-1993 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy.

2. THE dispute relates to shop No. 76/281 Latouche Road, Kanpur Smt. Balwant Kaur was its erstwhile owner. She let out the said shop to the petitioner on 6th May, 1972 and a rent note was executed by the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. THE petitioner started business in the shop in the name and style of M/s Ajai Rubber Company. She had taken Subhash Chandra, brother of her husband, as partner. A partnership deed was executed on 18th October, 1972, wherein a mention was made that the deed was effective from 1st day of. June, 1972. THE business was being carried on in the firm's name. Sometimes in 1978-79 another business was started in the name of Diamond Sales Corporation but within a year it was closed and the business of M/s. Ajai Rubber Company continued.

The erstwhile landlady sold the property to Smt. Amarjeet kaur and Manjeet Singh, respondents No. 1 and 2, by registered sale deed on 29-5-1988. The respondents gave a notice on 27-9-1988 intimating the petitioner that they had purchased the disputed property. In the year 1991 respondents filed application for release of the shop under Section 16 (i) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that the petitioner had inducted Subhash Chandra Jain, her brother-in-law, as a partner and after the enforcement of the Act it shall be taken as vacant under Section 12 (2) of the Act. They required the shop in question for personal need.

3. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 27th June, 1992, declared the vacancy on the ground that the petitioner had taken Subhash Chandra Jain as partner in the firm who is not a member of the family as defined under Section 3 (g) of the Act. THE petitioner filed writ petition No. 23088 of 1992 against the said order. THE writ petition was allowed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to decide as to since when Subhash Chandra Jain was taken as partner by the petitioner in the firm. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer has passed the impugned order dated 14-12-1993 holding that the partner ship business of the firm commenced after 5th July, 1972 and, therefore, the accommodation should be treated as vacant under Section 12 (2) of the Act.

4. I have heard Shri K. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri K. L. Grover, learned counsel for the respondents.

The main thrust of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the premises in question was taken on 6th May, 1972, and the petitioner had taken Subhash Chandra Jain, her brother- in-law as partner on 1st June, 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the business of the firm commenced after 5th July, 1972, and, therefore, partnership shall be treated to have come into existence from the date of commencement of the business:

5. THE view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is erroneous. THE execution of the partnership deed is not necessary for admitting a person as partner in the business. THE contract of partnership may be oral and the partnership deed may be executed later on. THE business may be started from a different period after the necessary resources are available for carrying on partnership business. THE partner ship deed was admittedly executed on 18th October, 1972 but the partnership deed it self makes a mention that it was effective from 1st day of June 1972. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to record a finding as to when the contract of partner ship was entered into between the petitioner and Subhash Chandra Jain. THE mere fact that the document was executed on 18-10-1972 was itself not conclusive. THE version of the petitioner was that for the purpose of registration with the I