ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The dispute relates to allotment of flat No. 4/338, situate on Ansari Road, Bulandshahar. The property in dispute has been allotted in favour of the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party, Bulandshahar. Haji Altaf Hussain, opposite party No. 2 is the landlord of the premises. The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Garg, wants that his possession be regularised within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act. On 23-11-1977 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the flat in dispute in favour of the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party. The application for regularisation was rejected by him as well as the release application on behalf of the landlord Haji Altaf Hussain. Haji Altaf Hussain did not file any revision against the said order but Narendra Kumar Garg filed a revision before the District Judge, Bulandshahar. The revision came up for hearing before the Vth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar. who by his order dated 21st August, 1978 dismissed it. The revisional authority has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not a licensee or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord and as such his occupation cannot be regularised under Section 14 of the Act. After recording this finding the revisional court further found that the order declaring the vacancy was a valid order and thereafter the allotment order in favour of the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party was found to be valid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on three grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party, in whose favour the allotment has been made, is not a person within the meaning of Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act and as such no allotment can be made in the said name. Secondly, that the allotment could be made only for residential or business purposes and not for any political purposes, viz., for carrying on activities relating to politics. Thirdly, it was submitted that the petitioner having been found in possession prior to and after 5th July, 1979 it should have been presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that his possession was with the consent of the landlord. 4. Thirdly, it was submitted that the petitioner having been found in possession prior to and after 5th July, 1979 it should have been presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that his possession was with the consent of the landlord. 4. I have examined all the three submissions made by the learned counsel but in my opinion they are without substance. 5. Section 16 (l)(a) provides that the District Magistrate by order can require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant to any 'person specified in the order. The question, therefore, arises as to what meaning should be given to the word 'person used in this context. The word 'person has not been defined in the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the word 'person should be either a natural person or a legal person recognised by law. In my opinion it is not possible to give such a narrow interpretation to the word 'person used in this context. Since the word 'person has not been defined in the Act it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the U. P. General Clauses Act. Sec. 4, sub-clause (33) of the U. P. General Clauses Act defines 'person as follows: "person shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not." 6. The definition of the world 'person makes the position quite clear. It is not necessary that 'person should be a natural person or an incorporated body. The definition is inclusive and can include also an association or body of individuals. In any case Bhartiya Communist Party is an association within the meaning of the definition of the word 'person. In the circumstances in my view the allotment order could have been issued in the name of the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party. In the circumstances the first submission lacks merit. 7. Section 16 (3) (a) of the Act clearly lays down that the allotment order shall specify whether the building shall be used by a tenant for residential or non-residential purposes. The legislature has categorised the nature of the use into two categories, either residential or non-residential. It has not categorised as residential or business as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. Business would come under non-residential purposes. The legislature has categorised the nature of the use into two categories, either residential or non-residential. It has not categorised as residential or business as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. Business would come under non-residential purposes. Therefore the body carrying on political activities would be entitled for an allotment under the category of non-residential purposes. In the circumstances the second submission made by the learned counsel also has no substance. 8. In regard to the last submission made by Jthe learned counsel no such presumption, as submitted by the learned counsel can arise in favour of the petitioner. The revisional court, after examining the evidence on record, has categorically found that the occupation of the petitioner was not with the consent of the landlord on or before 5th July, 1976. Even if the petitioner had come in possession or remained in possession subsequently it will not make his possession permissive prior to 5th July, 1976 as required by the Act. In the circumstances, since it has been found that the petitioner was not in occupation of the premises in dispute with the consent of the landlord the revisional court rightly did not regularise the occupation in favour of the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act. 9. In view of the above there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.