JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner R.K. Berry seeks the quashing of the orders dated 30.12.1972, 29.3.1973 and 27.5.1973 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, Commissioner Agra Division and the State Government, respectively. 2. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of bungalow No. 153 Lal Kurti, Agra Cantt. Respondent No. 4, A.D. Dhawan, is the owner and landlord of that building. The accommodation in dispute is situated in the Cantonment area. Originally the procedure for letting and eviction of tenants in respect of the accommodation situated in Cantonment areas, was governed by U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction Act) Act X of 1952. In the year 1957 the Parliament passed the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act of 1950. Section 3 of the said Act authorised the Central Government to issue a notification extending the provisions of any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation, in any State, existing on the date of the notification with such restriction and modification as it may deem fit to the area lying in Cantonment. The Parliament passed yet another Act in the year 1971 entitled as U.P. Cantonment of Rent and Eviction Repeal Act 1971. Section 2 of that Act provided that on and from the date, the U.P. Act III of 1947 is extended by notification under Section 3 of Act No. 46 of 1957 to the Cantonments in the State of U.P. Act No. X of 1952 shall stand repealed. However, the necessary notification extending the provisions of U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act III of 1947) to the Cantonment Areas was issued on 3rd April 1973. The result was that notwithstanding the enactment of the 1957 and 1971. Acts mentioned above the Cantonment Control of Rent and Eviction Act i.e. Act X of 1952 continued to be applicable in Cantonment areas of U.P. right upto 3rd April 1972, where after the provisions of U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act III of 1947 became applicable to that area on 30th June, 1971, before the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947 were made applicable to the Cantonment area, Sri A.D. Dhawan, respondent No. 4 made an application under Section 14 of Act X of 1952, seeking permission to evict the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute. Before that application could be disposed of the U.P. Legislature passed the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting and Eviction Act 1972, Act XIII of 1972 which came into force on 15th July, 1972 Section 14 of Act III of 1972 repealed U.P. Act III of 1947. Notwithstanding the repeal of U.P. Act III of 1947, the proceedings under Section 14 of 1952 instituted on 30.6.1971 were converted into proceeding under Section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1947. After considering the respective cases of the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by his order dated 20th December 1972, granted permission to the landlord to file a suit for petitioner's ejectment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went up in revision before the Commissioner Agra Division. He inter alia contended that after the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 had repealed U.P. Act III of 1947, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the application for permission under that Act. Besides this the petitioner also urged that, in the circumstances, no permission to file a suit for his ejectment should have been granted. The Commissioner over-ruled both the pleas raised by the petitioner and upheld the order, dated 20th December, 1972 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner then took the matter up in revision before the State Government which dismissed the revision by its order dated 27th April 1973, observing that as the provision of U.P. Act III of 1947 stood repealed by U.P. Act XIII of 1972, it had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 7-F of U.P. Act III of 1947. The petitioner has now approached this Court and has prayed that the three orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Commissioner Agra Division and the State Government, be quashed and the application moved by Sri Dhawan, respondent No. 4, for permission to file a suit for his ejectment, be rejected. 3. The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the State Government erred in dismissing the revision filed by him on the ground that after repeal of U.P. Act III of 1947 it had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 7-F of that Act. 3. The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the State Government erred in dismissing the revision filed by him on the ground that after repeal of U.P. Act III of 1947 it had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 7-F of that Act. While making this submission, learned counsel appears to abandon the objection that in view of the repeal of Act III of 1947, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to consider an application for permission to file a suit for his ejectment. However, I propose to deal with the question whether in view of the passing of the U.P. Urban Building Regulations of Letting Rent and Eviction Act of 1972 which repealed the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947, proceedings for permission to file a suit for ejectment of a tenant, in areas lying within the Cantonment limits, could be continued and whether the State Government could exercise jurisdiction under Section 7-F of that Act. 4. Law relating to Rent and Eviction, in respect of accommodation situated in Cantonment area, can be enacted only by the Parliament as the subject-matter of the Legislation falls in list I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. It was in exercise of this power that the Parliament passed the Cantonment Control of Rent and Eviction Act, Act X of 1952. Subsequently it passed the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act of 1957, authorising the Central Government to extend by notification the provisions of the Rent Control Laws as prevailing in a particular State to the Cantonment Areas. The U.P. Cantonment Control of Rent and Eviction Act was to stand repealed with effect from the date on which the necessary not fixation was issued as per Section 2 of U.P. Cantonment Control of Rent and Eviction Repeal Act, Act 68 of 1971. As stated earlier, the necessary notification under Act 46 of 1957 extending the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947 to Cantonment Areas was issued by the Central Government on 3rd April 1972. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947 were made applicable to areas lying in Cantonments in U.P., not because of its own force but because the Parliament adopted the same by reference. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947 were made applicable to areas lying in Cantonments in U.P., not because of its own force but because the Parliament adopted the same by reference. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether in such circumstances, if the enactment which has been adopted by the Parliament for application to Cantonment Areas is subsequently repealed by the State Act, its provision would continue to be operative. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Ram Swarup v. Munshi, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 563, wherein the Supreme Court observed thus : "Where the provisions of an Act are incorporated by reference in a later Act, the repeal of the earlier Act has in general no effect upon the construction or effect of the Act in which its provisions have been incorporated." Accordingly, the repeal of U.P. Act III of 1947 which had been incorporated by the notification dated 3rd April, 1972 for application to the Cantonment Areas under the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act 46 of 1957, were not at all affected by its repeal by U.P. XIII of 1972 till such time a fresh notification under the provisions of Act 46, 1957 applying the provisions of Act XIII of 1972 to Cantonment Areas, was issued. It is not disputed that by 29.8.1973, when the State Government decided the revision filed by the petitioner, no notification under Act 46 of 1957 extending the provisions of Act XIII of 1972 to Cantonment Areas had been issued. Accordingly, notwithstanding its repeal by Act XIII of 1972, the provisions of Section 7-F of Act III of 1947 continued to be applicable in respect of accommodations lying in the Cantonment areas In the State of U.P. The State Government was thereafter clearly in error in dismissing the petitioner's revision on the ground that the provisions of Section 7-F having been repealed it had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. 5. It has been brought to my notice that after the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted permission to the landlord to file a suit for petitioner's ejectment, and the revision against that order had been dismissed by the Commissioner on 29.3.1973 the landlord filed a civil suit for petitioner's ejectment on 7th April, 1973. 5. It has been brought to my notice that after the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted permission to the landlord to file a suit for petitioner's ejectment, and the revision against that order had been dismissed by the Commissioner on 29.3.1973 the landlord filed a civil suit for petitioner's ejectment on 7th April, 1973. In the case of Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 971, the Supreme Court has held that once on the basis of permission obtained from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, as confirmed by the Commissioner, the landlord has filed a civil suit, the State Government loses jurisdiction to make an effective order with regard to that permission which has already been availed of by the landlord. Accordingly, in this case, even though the provisions of Section 7-F of U.P. Act III of 1947 continued to be operative, the State Government had no option but to reject the revision filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter the order dated 27th May 1973 dismissing the petitioner's revision application does not call for any interference. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next urged that in this case the landlord had applied for permission to file a suit for petitioner's ejectment on the ground that the existing accommodation available with him was not sufficient for his use and that he required the accommodation in possession of the petitioner for his personal occupation. The landlord had reconstructed the portion of the building which was in his occupation and the existing accommodation available with him was quite sufficient for his needs. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner, Agra Division did not properly appreciate the accommodation which was available for use by the landlord. Accordingly, he made an apparent error in holding that the accommodation available with landlord was not sufficient for his use. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner, Agra Division did not properly appreciate the accommodation which was available for use by the landlord. Accordingly, he made an apparent error in holding that the accommodation available with landlord was not sufficient for his use. He pointed out that the accommodation which was in possession of the landlord was as follows :- (1) Store 11' x 10' (2) Garage 18' x 11' (3) Porch 12' x 13 (4) Drawing cum Dining Room 34'-9" x 19'-3" (5) Verandah 20' x 7' (6) Office 8' x 7' (7) Hall 16' x 16' (8) Hall 16' x 16' (9) Room 14 x 12' (10) Room 10' x 7 (11) Store 9' x 7 (12) Bathroom 9' x 5 (13) Kitchen 13' x 9 (14) W.C. and Bath 10' x 10' x 16' x 6' (15) Courtyard 40' x 19' (16) Big Verandah 7. Details of the accommodation as enunciated by him, except for the dimension of some of the terms mentioned above, is admitted by the landlord. This shows that apart from other accommodation atleast two big halls and two rooms were available to the landlord for being used as living room. The Commissioner as well as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer have proceeded on the footing that only two living rooms were available to the landlord and the rest of the rooms were in the shape of Kothris. This, according to the petitioner, is an apparent error which vitiates the order passed by the Rent Control Authorities. 8. I have perused the order passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division. While considering the nature of the accommodation available with the landlord, he observed that considering his status and standing only two good rooms were available to him for being used as living rooms. He also observed that the other rooms in the occupation of the landlord were in the form of Kothris which were not suitable for being used as living rooms by him. It follows that the Commissioner had taken into consideration all the accommodation mentioned by the petitioner and after considering the same he came to the conclusion that the two rooms 14' x 12' and 10' x 7 and other rooms which had been described as store, were not suitable for being used by him as living rooms. It follows that the Commissioner had taken into consideration all the accommodation mentioned by the petitioner and after considering the same he came to the conclusion that the two rooms 14' x 12' and 10' x 7 and other rooms which had been described as store, were not suitable for being used by him as living rooms. It is true that no hard and fast rule regarding the size of a room which can be used as a living room by a person can be laid down. It would depend upon the location of the rooms as also upon the status and standing of the person who is expected to live therein. In this connection the type of living to which he is accustomed to or is expected to adopt has also to be considered. Reasonableness of landlord's claim whether a particular room is suitable for being used as living room or not would again depend upon charging social, economic and other conditions prevailing at a particular time. It may be that at a particular time a person enjoying a particular status may not use a particular room for living purposes, but with change in times it may not be reasonable for him to say that that particular room will not suit him for being used as living room. The question whether a particular room is suitable for use as a living room by the landlord has to be decided by the authorities appointed under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Clearly, in coming to the conclusion that only two rooms were fir for being used as living rooms by the landlord, the Commissioner took into consideration the factor mentioned above and his finding that there were only two living rooms available to the landlord is not vitiated. While exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not for this Court to reassess the claims made by the landlord and the tenant and to record its own finding whether or not the claim of the landlord that apart from the rooms 16' x 16' other rooms in his occupation were suitable for being used for residential purposes. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that respondent No. 4 was merely owner of a share in the accommodation in dispute. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that respondent No. 4 was merely owner of a share in the accommodation in dispute. Accordingly, it was not open to him to file an application for permission to file a suit for petitioner's ejectment unless the other co-sharers in the property also joined him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer took the view that it was not necessary for him to go into the question whether the accommodation was owned solely by Sri Dhawan or whether he was merely a co-sharer along with others. The application for permission to file a suit for petitioner's ejectment was maintainable at the instance of Sri Dhawan even if he merely co-shared in the property in dispute. The Commissioner also did not go into the question. 10. I am not impressed by this argument. According to the claim made in the counter affidavit, which has not been controverted, Sri Dhawan purported to purchase the entire accommodation from one Sri Prem Parkash. In Cantonment records he alone is recorded as sole owner of the property in dispute. The expression landlord has been defined in U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act as meaning a person to whom rent is payable by a tenant. The Control of Rent and Eviction Act does not equate a landlord with an owner. The petitioner had been paying rent of the accommodation in dispute only to Sri Dhawan and to no one else. Further, there is no controversy between respondent No. 4 i.e. Sri Dhawan and other alleged co-sharers of the property at this stage. In the circumstances, it is clear that so far as the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947 are concerned vis-a-vis the petitioner, it is Sri Dhawan alone who is in the place of the landlord. U.P. Act III of 1947 nowhere provides that all the co-sharers or co-owners of the property must join in an application seeking permission to file a suit for tenant's ejectment. All that the Act requires is that such an application should be made by the landlord i.e. by person to whom rent is payable. Accordingly, Sri Dhawan, as the landlord, was competent to maintain the application for permission. 11. Since all the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner have been repelled, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Stay order dated 23.8.1973 is vacated.