JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J. 1. Premises nos. 21, 22 and 23 situated in mohalla Kan-ungoyan, Meerut belonged to one Kam-eshwar Dayal. He had let out the houses numbered 22 and 23 to Manohar Lal. He had sub-let the house no. 23 to Kripa Ram, the petitioner. On 14-2-1974 Kameshwar Dayal sold the aforesaid premises to Rameshwar Dayal. Before this purchase Manohar Lal had died on 28-1-1974, leaving behind his daughter. As she was a married daughter she had neither any right to the tenancy left by her father Manohar nor did she claim any right. 2. Upon the death of Manohar Lal, Rameshwar Dayal filed an application for the release of premises No. 22 and 23 under sec. 16 of the U.P. (Regulation of Buildings Operation) Act (briefly stated as the New Act) on the ground that as the sole tenant was dead, those houses were open to release. During the pendency of this application the petitioner also filed an application for the allotment of these premises in his favour. Kriparam, the petitioner was admittedly in possession of portion no. 23. But the Prescribed Authority without issuing any notice to him released the same in favour of landlord. Consequently the application made by the petitioner for allotment was also rejected. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for review under 16 (5) of the New Act, on the ground that the release order, having been obtained on misrepresentation and without disclosing all the relevant facts, was liable to be recalled. The application was resisted by Kameshwar Dayal. He admitted that the petitioner was a sub-tenant of house no. 23 but claimed that with the death of Manohar Lal the tenant-in-chief, the petitioner's right, if any, were extinguished and therefore possession of the petitioner being otherwise than allotment or release should be deemed to be unauthorised. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer accepted the case of Rameshwar Dayal and rejected the application for review filed by Kripa Ram. Kripa Ram preferred an appeal before the District Judge under section 18 of the New Act. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 6-7-1973. Kripa Ram has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid judgment of the authorities named above in this court. The sole question that arises for decision in this appeal is about the status of Kripa Ram, after the death of Manohar Lal. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 6-7-1973. Kripa Ram has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid judgment of the authorities named above in this court. The sole question that arises for decision in this appeal is about the status of Kripa Ram, after the death of Manohar Lal. It would be beneficial to refer to the provisions of the New Act for the purpose of appreciating the point involved for decision. Section 3 (a) of the New Act, as stated above, defines a 'tenant'. A 'tenant' in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death, his heirs; Section 11 is the other relevant provision in this regard. It provides that no person shall let any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under section 16 of the Act, Section 12 provides for deemed vacancy of building in certain cases. Section 13 is meant for putting the restriction on occupation of building without allotment or release order. By section 14 legislature has provided for regularisation of occupation of existing sub-tenants. Section 16 provides for allotment and release of vacant building. The grounds on which the allotment and release can be made under this section have been provided in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 16. Section 21 deals with the proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant. 3. A survey of the above provisions would indicate that the following are the events when a house can be released in favour of a landlord:- (i) in case of deemed vacancy (section 12), (ii) in case of actual vacancy (section 16), (iii) in case of unauthorised occupation (Secs. 11 and 13) and (iv) in case of a building in occupation of a tenant (under section 21), 4. It is indisputable that in the instant case we are concerned only with whether the occupation of Kripa 'Ram, the petitioner, became unauthorised on death of Manohar Lal ? The submission made on his behalf was that as the right of Kripa Ram to retain the possession of premises no. 23 extinguished with the death of Manohar Lal, there fore, he must be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of the house after 28th of January, 1974. The submission made on his behalf was that as the right of Kripa Ram to retain the possession of premises no. 23 extinguished with the death of Manohar Lal, there fore, he must be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of the house after 28th of January, 1974. On this assertion the counsel for the respondent no.3 claimed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rightly found that the premises no. 23 was vacant and open to release. In order to consider the argument of the counsel for the respondent it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, having bearing on this controversy. 5. Section 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act recognizes right of a tenant-in-chief or a lessor to create a sub-lease. Creation of sub-lease did not bring into existence relationship of landlord and tenant between the sub-lessee and the lessor as there is thus no privity of contract between them. The sub-lessee is bound to go and leave the premises in his occupation in case the lease of moveable property was determined by the lessor. Section 115 of the Transfer of Property Act, however, is an exception to the above provision. This section provides that in case the lessee surrenders his tenancy expressly or impliedly, that would not prejudice an under-lease of the right to continue in possession. Providing that the sub-lessee can continue in possession of the property despite surrender of the lease by the tenant-in-chief shows that the law confers rights independently on him. Even in case of forfeiture the right of a sub-lessee, to make the payment of rent and to continue in possession was accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Ahmad Hussain v. Riyaz Ahmad, 1914 (12) ALJ 1085. It held that a sub-lessee has a right to claim relief against forfeiture, for payment, he would establish direct relationship between himself and the owner on the same terms and conditions on which he was previously holding. It shows that sub-tenants also has enforceable rights under the Transfer of Property Act, right of the sub-tenant to continue in possession is, to my mind, an intervening right and that on the death of the lessee no merger would take place in accordance with sub-clause (d) of section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. It shows that sub-tenants also has enforceable rights under the Transfer of Property Act, right of the sub-tenant to continue in possession is, to my mind, an intervening right and that on the death of the lessee no merger would take place in accordance with sub-clause (d) of section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the death of the lessee the sub-lessee will have a right to continue in possession of the property so long as the period of the original lease made in favour of the original lessee does not expire. But if it is not a case of fixed term lease, the sub-lessee will be entitled to hold subject to the same obligations on the terms and conditions of the original lessee. Considering the question in this back ground and the provisions of the Act No. XIII of 1972, I do not find any different position. The tenancy rights of Manohar Lal did not merge on his death under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. The problem which now arises is about the position of a sub-lessee in case of death of his tenant-in-chief. Generally speaking the right of a lessee is inheritable. In an event when he dies leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives no difficulty is likely to arise. On his death his right in the lease would be inherited by his heirs. But where he does not leave any heir, the question is whether his lessee rights would get merged with that of the lessor under section 111 (d) of the Transfer of Property Act. Counsel for the respondent relied upon this provision of the Transfer of Property Act and urged that as the tenant Manohar Lal, who was the tenant-in-chief or lessee died on 28-1-74, his rights were merged. Under Section 111 (1) (d) merger takes place when greater estate and the lesser estate coincide in the same person. It implies union of two unequal interests in the same person at the same time. Under Section 111 (1) (d) merger takes place when greater estate and the lesser estate coincide in the same person. It implies union of two unequal interests in the same person at the same time. For constituting merger under the a fore said Section it is necessary that the vesting of interest must be absolute as the said provision provides for "whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person in the same right." The words "the whole of the property" denotes that if an intervening right exists in the property there will be no merger under this provision. On the facts of this case the authorised at one time becomes unauthorised on account of the death of the lessee. As in my opinion the possession of such a tenant does not become unauthorised the inescapable conclusion to which I reach is that the direct relationship between the sub-lessee and the lessee will thereafter be created, on the same terms and conditions under which he was in possession previously during the life time of his tenant-in-chief. Acceptance of the proposition to the contrary would lead to an anamolous result as it might destroy the purpose of section 14 of the Act for which it was enacted. Section 14 further fortifies his position. It provides for the regularisation of tenancy in occupation of a person on the date of the commencement of this Act with the consent of the landlord. As the result a person whose possession was initially unauthorised stands regularised and becomes legal. Unauthorised possession before the date of enforcement of this Act will no longer be a ground for his eviction. The intention behind the aforesaid section appears to be to retain possession for those persons who were occupying the premises unauthorisedly but with the consent of the landlord. In the instant case both the authorities found that possession of Kripa Ram, the petitioner, was with the consent of Kameshwar Dayal, who was the previous landlord. It may be noted that Kameshwar Dayal sold the property to Rameshwar Dayal, the present landlord on 14-2-1974. So not only on the date of the commencement of this Act but also on the date of death of Manohar Lal the possession of Kripa Ram was with the consent of the landlord i.e. Kameshwar Dayal. It may be noted that Kameshwar Dayal sold the property to Rameshwar Dayal, the present landlord on 14-2-1974. So not only on the date of the commencement of this Act but also on the date of death of Manohar Lal the possession of Kripa Ram was with the consent of the landlord i.e. Kameshwar Dayal. If his possession in this section was authorised, how could it become unauthorised simply on the death of the lessee. There is no provision in the new Act which says that the possession of such a person 7. For the reasons given above, I find that the possession of Kripa Ram was not unauthorised on the date when the application for release was filed by Rameshwar Dayal, the landlord. His possession having already been regularised under sec. 14, he was not required to file any application for allotment in respect of house no. 23. 8. Consequently, the order releasing premises no. 23 to Rameshwar Dayal, the respondent no. 3, was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the New Act. The Prescribed Authority should have allowed the application for review filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (5) of the Act. Subject to above the writ petition partly succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the Prescribed Authority and that of the District Judge are quashed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.