JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - The accommodation in dispute in the aforesaid two writ petitions was originally in the tenancy of Sri K R. Das and Sri P. K. Mukerji who vacated the same on 2-6-1974 and 26.5.1974 respectively. There is no dispute that Smt. Ishwari Devi was the landlady of the premises. The case set up by Karan Vir Singh was that in June/July 1974 Smt. Ishwari Devi let out the premises to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 225. The Kent Control Inspector submitted a report to the effect that the premises had fallen vacant but the vacancy was not intimated by the landlady and let it out to Karan Vir Singh who was residing in the same locality opposite to the premises in dispute. Applications were made for allotment. Karan Vir Singh himself being such an applicant. Smt. Ishwari Devi filed an application for release of the premises in her favour. The application for release was rejected on the ground that the need of the landlady was absolutely false as neither he nor her son and his family resided at Meerut in the accommodation in dispute. It was also found that she unauthorisedly occupied the portion vacated by Sri K. R. Das and Sri P. K. Mukerji and subsequently let it out to Sri Karan Vir Singh. The application of Karan Vir Singh for allotment was rejected principally on the ground that he was an unauthorised occupant of the premises. In dealing with the matter of allotment it was again held that Smt. Ishwari Devi had let out this accommodation in 1974 to Sri Karan Vir Singh without an order of allotment The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to Harvir Singh finding his need to be most pressing. Smt. Ishwari Davi preferred an appeal against the order rejecting her application for release. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and dismissed the appeal. In the appeal filed by Karan Vir Singh benefit of section 14 of U P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972, as amended by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 was claimed. The learned Judge took the view that the petitioner was not entitled to claim benefit of the aforesaid provision. 2. Petition filed by Smt. Ishwari Devi (Civil Misc. The learned Judge took the view that the petitioner was not entitled to claim benefit of the aforesaid provision. 2. Petition filed by Smt. Ishwari Devi (Civil Misc. Writ No. 1612 of 1976) is devoid of any merit. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer recorded a finding that she was staying In Sikandrabad where her son was posted as an engineer and her need for the accommodation. In question was not bona fide. That finding has been affirmed by the learned Judge on appeal. The finding is one of fact and it has not been shown to be vitiated by any error much less an apparent error, on record. It appears that the landlady did not even appear before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer when her release application was taken up for consideration. The further finding that after the premises had been vacated by the previous tenant she inducted Karan Vir Singh as a tenant falsified her claim that she needed the accommodation in question. The petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 3. The claim put forward by Karan Vir Singh that he was entitled to the benefit conferred by section 14 as it stands now appears to be well founded. The petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 3. The claim put forward by Karan Vir Singh that he was entitled to the benefit conferred by section 14 as it stands now appears to be well founded. Section 14 provides : "Notwithstanding contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee within the meaning of section 2-A or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any such for proceeding for eviction is pending before any court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building." In order to claim the benefit of this provision the petitioner has to establish that he was a tenant in occupation of the building with the consent of the landlady before the commencement of U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 i. e. before July 5, 1976 and, secondly, no suit or proceeding for his eviction was pending before any court or authority on July 5, 1976 In the present proceeding the case set up by Karan Vir Singh was that he came "in possession of the disputed accommodation as a tenant with the consent of the landlady. The report of the Rent Control Inspector was also to the effect that the premises had been let out to the petitioner in May/June 1974. The stand taken by the landlady was that she had put in the petitioner as a care-taker during her temporary absence from Meerut. Although she did not admit that she had taken the petitioner as a tenant but she did admit that the petitioner was in occupation of the building with her consent. Her stand that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises as a care taker was not accepted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He held that the premises was illegally let out to the petitioner. That view was affirmed in appeal by the learned Judge. Harvir Singh, the allottee of the premises, also pleaded before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the premises had been illegally let out to the petitioner (Karan Vir Singh) by Smt. Ishwari Devi. He held that the premises was illegally let out to the petitioner. That view was affirmed in appeal by the learned Judge. Harvir Singh, the allottee of the premises, also pleaded before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the premises had been illegally let out to the petitioner (Karan Vir Singh) by Smt. Ishwari Devi. On the pleadings of the parties and the finding recorded in the proceedings there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner was in occupation of the building as a tenant although his occupation was unauthorised. The first ingredient of section 14 is thus fully satisfied. As regards the question whether any suit or proceeding for his eviction was pending before any court or authority on July 5, 1976. I afforded an opportunity to the parties to file affidavit on that fact. No affidavits has been filed by or on behalf of Harvir Singh and Smt. Ishwari Devi. Karan Vir Singh has filed an affidavit asserting that no suit or proceeding for his eviction was pending before any court or authority on the relevant date. He has annexed a copy of the application moved by allottee Harvir Singh before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Meerut, in which it was clearly mentioned that no order in Form C had been issued. This application appears to have been moved after October 5, 1976. It clearly indicates that no proceeding for eviction of Karan Vir Singh was pending prior to the date of this application I am satisfied on the material produced before me that no suit or proceeding for eviction of Karan Vir Singh was pending on or before July 5, 1976. The second ingredient of section 14 is also thus satisfied. The petitioner Karan Vir Singh must be held to be entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Act. He shall be deemed to be an authorised tenant of the accommodation. 4. In the result Civil Misc. Writ No. 1612 of 1976 filed by Smt. Ishwari Devi is dismissed. Civil Misc Writ No. 1610 of 1976 by Karan Vir Singh is allowed. "[he orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 19.3.1976 are quashed, and that of the Addl. District Judge dated 5.10.1975 are quashed. The parties in both the application shall bear their own costs.