JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - One Smt. Mohini Devi, sister of the petitioner, was the tenant of the premises in dispute. According to the petitioner he and his sister were running a hotel in partnership in the premises in dispute. By an arbitration award the petitioner became the sole proprietor of the hotel. According to the petitioner, the award was made a rule of the court on May 6, 1971, and the petitioner continued to run the hotel thereafter. Sometime in 1973 the landlord, who is not a party to this writ petition, filed a suit against Smt. Mohini Devi for her eviction on the ground of non. payment of rent. In the meantime, since the hotel was kept locked, some person applied for allotment of the premises. A report was called for and thereafter on October 31, 1973, the premises were allotted in favour of respondent No. 1, Mool Chand Gupta. Respondent No. 1 then moved an application under Section 16(4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for delivery of vacant possession of the premises by the eviction of the persons occupying the same. On receipt of notice of this application the petitioner entered into a compromise with the landlord and on December 6, 1971, filed a compromise application in the suit, filed by the landlord. By this compromise the landlord agree to withdraw the suit and accepted the entire arrears of rent from the petitioner and agreed to treat him as the tenant. On the basis of this compromise the petitioner moved an application before the vent Control and Eviction Officer for cancelling the allotment order on the ground that there was no vacancy in the premises, as he had become the tenant under Section 14 of the Act, as it stood at that time. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowed this application and cancelled the order of allotment and rejected the application made under section 16(4). Against this order Mool Chand Gupta filed an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was allowed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Kanpur, on August 6, 1975, the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer cancelling earlier allotment order was set aside and the allotment order in favour of Mool Chand Gupta was restored. The order of 7th Additional District Judge is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The appeal was allowed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Kanpur, on August 6, 1975, the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer cancelling earlier allotment order was set aside and the allotment order in favour of Mool Chand Gupta was restored. The order of 7th Additional District Judge is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Sri L. P. Nathani has contended that the Additional District Judge as wrong in rejecting his claim to be the tenant under Section 14 of the Act. There is no substance in the contention. Even if it be assumed that he petitioner was in actual occupation of the premises in dispute, the landlord had not, till the date of the allotment order, accepted him as the tenant or accepted rent from him. In this situation it cannot be said that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the new Act. That being so, the Additional District Judge was justified in rejecting the claim under Section 14. 3. Sri Nathani then contended that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act, as amended in July 1976. He might have been entitled to the benefit of the new Section 14, if he had been in occupation of the premises on the date immediately before the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1976. There is no averment or assertion in the writ petition or any where else to this effect. On the other band learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that his client had obtained possession even before the stay order was passed by this Court. In any case, since the necessary averments are not before me, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of amended Section 14 of the Act. 4. The writ petition is without merits and is hereby dismissed with costs. The stay order is vacated.