ORDER R.L. Gulati, J. - The petitioner, Ram Charan, is a tenant of an accommodation in Nadrai Gate, bazar Kasganj, Etah. The accommodation comprises one big hall and two small rooms at its back. The petitioner runs a flour mill in one room and grocery shop in the other. The passage to these two shops runs through the hall which has no partition wall. The petitioner pays a rent of Rs. 25.12 per month and has admittedly been carrying on this business in the premises in dispute for over 25 years. 2. The premises in dispute were previously owned by one Sri Shyam Swarup Chandak. The northern portion of the premises was purchased by one Sia Ram under a sale deed of January 12, 1962. The remaining portion towards the south was, a little later, purchased by Sia Ram's widowed mother Smt. Ganga Devi and his minor son Bhagwan Dass under a separate sale deed of April 28, 1962. Thus the building came to be owned in two portions by Sia Ram, his mother Smt. Ganga Devi and his son Bhagwan Dass. 3. Two separate applications for permission to eject the petitioner were filed under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, one by Sia Ram and the other by his mother Smt. Ganga Devi for herself and on behalf of Bhagwan Dass, minor. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Etah rejected the application of Sia Ram but allowed that of Ganga Devi permitting her to eject the petitioner from the Southern portion of the house. 4. The petitioner went up in revision before the Commissioner, Agra Division, against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, but remained unsuccessful. Thereafter he approached the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 7-F of the Act, but the State Government also rejected the petitioner's application under Section 7-F by its order dated February 1, 1966. However, the State Government suspended the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a period of three months. In the meantime, Smt. Ganga Devi had filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Kesganj, being suit No. 286 of 1965, on the basis of the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner has now moved this Court for writs of certiorari and prohibition. 5. In the meantime, Smt. Ganga Devi had filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Kesganj, being suit No. 286 of 1965, on the basis of the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner has now moved this Court for writs of certiorari and prohibition. 5. One of the contentions upon which the petitioner has been contesting the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act before the lower Court has been that the accommodation in his tenancy being composite one could not be split up into two portions as has been done by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the latter had, therefore, no jurisdiction to grant the permission for the petitioner's eviction from a portion of the accommodation only. This is the main contention of the petitioner upon which the petitioner has based the present writ petition. 6. That an accommodation as defined in the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act cannot be split up by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without the consent of the tenant is indisputable and indeed has not been disputed by Sri K.C. Saxena, the learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6, Smt. Ganga Devi and Bhagwan Dass. Mr. Saxena's contention however, is that as a result of the sale of the house in favour of two sets of landlords, the accommodation stood divided automatically. His further's submission is that the petitioner has himself attorned in favour of the two sets of landlords inasmuch as he has been paying rent separately to them. This conduct on the part of the petitioner, according to Mr. Saxena, had the effect of bringing about a division in the accommodation. He relies in support of this submission in Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. There can be no doubt that under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act if a landlord transfers the property leased or any part of it the transferee in the absence of any contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights of the landlords. But the transferee cannot acquire any greater or different right than the transferor had. It cannot be disputed that Shyam Swarup Chandak, the previous owner, had no right to divide the petitioner's tenancy without the latter's consent and, therefore, no such right passed on to the transferees. But the transferee cannot acquire any greater or different right than the transferor had. It cannot be disputed that Shyam Swarup Chandak, the previous owner, had no right to divide the petitioner's tenancy without the latter's consent and, therefore, no such right passed on to the transferees. The transferees had only the right to realise rent and that right has been acknowledged by the petitioner. The petitioner has no doubt attorned in favour of the new landlords and has been paying rent to them separately, but he had no choice in the matter. He had to pay rent to the two sets of owners, because the property came to be owned by them. In fact, if he had defaulted in making the payment to the two owners separately, that itself might have afforded a ground for his ejectment. Mr. Saxena has not been able to place before me any authority to show that when a composite house which is in the tenancy of a tenant is transferred to more than one person, the accommodation stands divided or that the payment of the rent separately to the purchasers results in the division of the tenancy. Such a proposition indeed would defeat the very purpose underlying an Act like the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 8. From the material on the record before me it is clear that the accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner was a composite one to begin with and remained so even after its ownership passed to Sia Ram and his mother and his son. The accommodation could not be sub-divided without the consent of the petitioner and there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner gave his consent. I am not prepared to hold that merely because the petitioner started paying rent separately to the two sets of owners, the accommodation in dispute became divided. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, therefore, clearly transgressed his jurisdiction in granting the permission to opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 to evict the petitioner from a portion of the house. 9. The writ petition is allowed with costs. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated June 7, 1963 that of the Commissioner dated October 9, 1963 and that of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated February 1, 1966 are quashed. 5 and 6 to evict the petitioner from a portion of the house. 9. The writ petition is allowed with costs. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated June 7, 1963 that of the Commissioner dated October 9, 1963 and that of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated February 1, 1966 are quashed. The opposite party No. 4 the Munsif Kasganj, district Etah, is directed not to proceed with suit No. 286 of 1965 pending before him.