ORDER K.C. Agrawal, J. - House No. 121, South Melaka, Allahabad, had been let out to S.N. Upadhyaya. In 1966, Smt. Uma Srivastava, Respondent 4, purchased this house. She, thereafter, filed an application under section 3 of U.P. Act, III of 1947 for permission to bring a suit for ejectment against S.N. Upadhyaya. One of the grounds alleged in that application was that as S.N. Upadhyaya had admitted several persons to sub-tenancy, the premises was not required by S.N. Upadhyaya. The application was resisted by S.N. Upadhyaya. Ultimately, it was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 27-11-1967 on the ground that the need of the landlady was bona fide. However, the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was reversed by the Commissioner on 7-2-1968. The landlady, thereafter, filed a representation under section 7-F of the Old Act to the State Government. The representation was dismissed. 2. Subsequently, S.N. Upadhyaya constructed his own house in 1975 and performed the Grah Pravesh and thereafter shifted to the said house by the middle of January 1976 It, however, appears that thereupon a number of persons filed applications for allotment. Hardeo Upadhyaya, the petitioner, also made an application for allotment. He, however, alleged in the said application that he had been in occupation of the house in question since 1961 with the consent of the landlord, and that firstly he was entitled to the regularisation of his tenancy, and if the tenancy could not be regularised, he was entitled to allotment. 3. Respondent 4 filed an application for release. 4. After considering all these applications, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held on 7-2-1976 that the house was vacant. While holding that the house was vacant, he had repelled the contention of the petitioner that the same was not vacant and was in his rightful possession. Having found that the landlady was not entitled to the release, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected her application. He also dismissed the application for allotment made by Hardeo Upadhyaya, the petitioner. Having found that Dr. Laeq Ahmad was the best suited, being most needy, he allotted the premises to him. 5. Against the order of allotment made in favour of Dr. Laeeq Ahmad, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge. This revision was numbered as revision No. 392 of 1976. Having found that Dr. Laeq Ahmad was the best suited, being most needy, he allotted the premises to him. 5. Against the order of allotment made in favour of Dr. Laeeq Ahmad, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge. This revision was numbered as revision No. 392 of 1976. Having found that the revision filed by the petitioner had no substance, the District Judge rejected his revision on 17-12-1976. The claim of the petitioner that since he was living with S. N. Upadhyaya, therefore, no vacancy had occurred, was also not accepted. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner was not a member of the family of S.N. Upadhyaya and, as such, his possession was unauthorised. The claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his tenancy under section 14 of U P. Act, XIII of 1972 was also negatived presumably on the finding that the petitioner was not in occupation of the premises with the consent of the landlord. 6. Subsequent to the dismissal of the revision filed by the petitioner, the revisions filed by the other applicants for allotment as well as that of the landlady for release came up for hearing before the learned District Judge on 18-2-1977. The revision filed by the landlady was numbered as Revision No. 614 of 1976. All these revisions were decided by a common judgment dated 18-2- 1977. On this date, the learned District Judge accepted the revision of the landlady and dismissed these of others. While accepting the revision of the landlady, the District Judge found that her need was bona fide and that she required the premises for herself and her family members. In this way, it would be seen that the District Judge passed two orders. The first order was dated 17-12-1972. This gave rise to writ petition No. 2026 of 1976, whereas against the subsequent order, which had been made on 18-2-1977, writ petition No. 1141 of 1977 was preferred. As the points involved in the two writ petitions are common, these are being decided by a single judgment. 7. Sri K.M. Dayal, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the courts below committed an error in holding that the premises was vacant and was open for allotment. As the points involved in the two writ petitions are common, these are being decided by a single judgment. 7. Sri K.M. Dayal, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the courts below committed an error in holding that the premises was vacant and was open for allotment. He also contended that on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the courts below should have regularised the tenancy under section 14 of the Act. 8. So far as the first point is concerned, it is the admitted case of the parties that the premises had been let out to S.N. Upadhyaya. He had been paying rent of the premises to the predecessor-in-interest of Smt. Uma Srivastava, and after she purchased the house in 1968 S.N. Upadhayaya acknowledged her as his landlady. Counsel, however, suggested that although the receipts were issued in the name of S.N. Upadhyaya, but the real person who was paying the rent was the petitioner. It is not possible to accept it inasmuch as it is the admitted case of the parties that S.N. Upadhyaya had constructed the house in 1975. Before the construction of the house, S.N. Upadhyaya was residing in the same. It, therefore, appears to me that the plea of the petitioner that he had been paying the rent to the landlady was not correct and was rightly not accepted. 9. The claim of the petitioner that he had been occupying the premises along with S.N. Upadhyaya also does not appear to be sustainable. While deciding the application made by the petitioner for regularisation of his tenancy and allotment, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held : "Since Sri S.N. Upadhyaya has ceased to occupy the accommodation, Sri Hardeo Upadhyaya occupying it without an order of "allotment is clearly an unauthorised occupant and the building in question is vacant, and the building in question has been notified under section 13 of the Act." From the aforesaid finding, it is clear that Hardeo Upadhyaya entered into possession of the house after S.N. Upadhyaya had constructed his own house in 1975. Hardeo Upadhyaya was, therefore, not in possession of the premises immediately before the commencement of U.P. Act, XIII of 1972, and, as such, he was not entitled to get the benefit of section 14 of the said Act. 10. Hardeo Upadhyaya was, therefore, not in possession of the premises immediately before the commencement of U.P. Act, XIII of 1972, and, as such, he was not entitled to get the benefit of section 14 of the said Act. 10. Moreover, the benefit of section 14 of the Act can be given to a person who is living in a premises as a tenant with the consent of the landlord. In the instant case, even if it be assumed that the petitioner was living in the house, he was not living as a tenant with the consent of the landlord, and, as such, he could not get the benefit of the aforesaid section. The residence of a person as a tenant is one of the important requisites for getting the benefit of section 14. As that requisite was missing, the inescapable result was that the benefit of section 14 could not be given to him. 11. The discussion made above would lead to the conclusion that Hardeo Upadhyaya was an unauthorised occupant, and that he was not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of U.P. Act, XIII of 1972. 12. The other question that now remains to be discussed is about the release order. The District Judge found that the need of the landlady was bona fide, and held that she wanted to live in the house herself along with her family members. This is a finding of fact. Nothing could be pointed out to show that the finding recorded was illegal. 13. Sri K. M. Dayal, however, contended that since Hardeo Upadhyaya had not been impleaded as a party in the revision filed by Smt. Uma Srivastava, the order passed by the District Judge releasing the premises in her favour was invalid. It is true that in the revision preferred by Smt. Uma Srivastava, the petitioner had not been impleaded, but to me it appears that firstly he was not entitled to be impleaded as a party, and, secondly, his non- implead mentation has not prejudiced his case. Once it had been found that the premises was vacant, the application of the landlady for release had to be decided on its own merits and that the petitioner had no right to contest the same. Accordingly, the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was unjustified. Moreover. Once it had been found that the premises was vacant, the application of the landlady for release had to be decided on its own merits and that the petitioner had no right to contest the same. Accordingly, the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was unjustified. Moreover. when the application for allotment made by the petitioner was dismissed on merits, he could not allege that the release order made in favour of Smt. Uma Srivastava was invalid. He could at the most get an allotment order. The application made for that purpose was considered on merits and was found to have no substance. So far as he was concerned, the entire controversy was finished. 14. For all these reasons, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. The stay order is discharged. The petitioner Hardeo Upadhayaya, is however, granted three month's time to vacate the premises. Smt. Uma Srivastava will be entitled to get costs in both the writ petitions from the petitioner.