JUDGMENT

N. P. SINGH, J.:- This appeal has been filed against an order dated 21-9-1992 passed by the Allahabad High Court on a Writ Petition filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed orders dated 13-8-1981 and 18-11-1981 passed by the Rent Controller declaring a vacancy under Section 12(2) read with Section 12(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The dispute is in respect of a shop bearing Municipal No. 24-34 situated at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Civil Lines Market, Allahabad. In the year 1937, the shop was let out to late Sheobux Roy by the grand father of the appellant. The said Sheobux Roy started a business in the name and style of "M/s. B.N. Rama and Co." Sheobux Roy died on 3-2-1941 leaving behind five sons namely Khush Bakht Roy, Sant Bux Roy, Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy. In the year 1943, there was a family partition amongst the sons of Sheobux Roy and the shop in dispute fell to the share of Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy. The other two sons ceased to have any interest or concern with the shop in question. Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy were carrying on their business in the name and style of" M/s. B. N. Rama and Co.". In the year1976, Ganpat Roy and his son Ramesh Roy, constituted a new partnership firm with one Swarup Kailash, son-in-law of Ganpat Roy under the name and style of "M/s. B.N. Rama and Co. (Textiles)" for carrying on the business in textile, in the premises in question. In the year 1979, the appellant filed suit for eviction of the respondent-tenants (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) on the ground that there was a sub-letting of the premises by induction of Swarup Kailash, the son-in-law of Ganpat Roy as a partner for carrying on the business in the shop in dispute.

3. In March 1981, one Ramesh Nath Kapur and Radhey Shyam filed an application for allotment of the said premises to them, on the ground that there was a deemed vacancy of the premises. The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer by his order dated 13-8-1981 held that there was a deemed vacancy in respect of the said premises and he directed that the said vacancy be notified. A petition was filed by the respondents on 11-9-1981 making prayer to recall the aforesaid order dated 13-8-1981 and to give them permission to file objections and to contest the proceedings. That petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer by his order dated13-9-1981. The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer by his order dated 18-11-1981 negatived the contention of the respondents that there was no deemed vacancy in respect of the premises in question. Thereafter a Writ Application was filed on behalf of the respondents which was dismissed by the High Court saying that it was not maintainable. The Respondents filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court against the aforesaid order of the High Court. This Court allowed their appeal on 29-3-1985 and directed the High Court to rehear the Writ Petition filed by the respondents on merits. It was further said by this Court that pending disposal of the writ petition before the High Court, there shall be a stay of further proceedings in respect of the allotment of the premises in question and the respondents shall not be dispossessed from the same.

4. The Writ Petition, aforesaid, was ultimately allowed by the impugned order dated 21-9-1992 by the High Court on the finding that after the death of Sheobux Roy on 3-2-1941, his sons became tenants in common and not joint tenants. As such for any contravention made by Ganpat Roy one of the sons of Sheobux Roy by inducting his son-in-law as a partner of the firm shall not result into deemed vacancy of the whole premises under the provisions of the Act. It is this finding which has been put in issue before us.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to certain provisio