JUDGMENT K. M. Dayal, J. 1. THE present petition has been filed by the landlord against an order passed by the revisional court under sec. 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dismissing her revision. 2. THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application under sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act for eviction of respondent no. 3, who was the sitting tenant. After rejection of that application respondent no. 3 moved an application under Rule 10 (6) (a) of the rules framed under the Act, that he was an old man and he wanted to take Om Prakash, respondent no. 4 as partner in his business. That application was allowed by an order dated 3rd June, 1977. A revision was filed by the landlord against that order under sec. 18 of the Act. That revision was allowed by the District Judge, Dehradun by order dated 19th November, 1977. The District Judge held that the respondent no. 4 was not alleged to be a relation of respondent no. 3 and, therefore, the question of partnership as permitted by sec. 12 (2) of the Act could not arise. The matter came to this court in a writ petition and that order of the District Judge, Dehradun was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding the matter afresh. 3. IT appears from judgment of the District Judge dated 19-11-1977 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) that after the order dated 3rd of June, 1977 rent was paid by Shobha Singh and Om Prakash jointly as partners. The contention before the District Judge was that the landlord had consciously accepted the rent and treated them as tenants. The finding was that the landlord was an illiterate lady and, therefore, it could not be said that by putting thumb impression on the receipt she accepted Om Prakasd as well a tenant. 4. AFTER the decision of the writ petition the matter was reopened before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and by order dated 11-6-1977 the respondent no. 3 was permitted to accept respondent no. 4 as a partner and it was held that the partnership was bonafide. A revision was filed against that order before the District Judge, Dehradun and that revision has been dismissed on 17th July, 1979. 3 was permitted to accept respondent no. 4 as a partner and it was held that the partnership was bonafide. A revision was filed against that order before the District Judge, Dehradun and that revision has been dismissed on 17th July, 1979. Both the orders dated 11th June, 1979 and 17th July, 1979 are challenged in the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions before me. His first contention was that sub-rule (6) of the rule 10 framed under the Act was ultra vires of the provisions of the Act and once a vacancy occurred under sec. 12 no allotment could be made in favour of a person who had been deemed to cease to occupy the premises under sec. 12 (2) of the Act. There is a prohibition in sub-rule (6) in itself, but there is no provision in the Act which prohibited any allotment being made in favour of a person who had been deemed to cease to occupy under sec. 12 of the Act. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the proviso 2 under which the accommodation has to be allotted in favour of his partnership was in violation of any provisions of the Act. It certainly was an exception to the provision of sub-rule (6) itself which can always be permitted by the provisos. 5. THE other objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the tenant Shobha Singh having taken Om Prakash, respondent no. 4, as a partner before the order dated 11th June 1979 was passed, the proviso (a) sub rule (6) of rule 10 was not attracted and no permission could be granted for taking respondent no. 4 as a partner. The proviso is quoted below :- "(a) if the District Magistrate is satisfied in a case referred to in sec. 12 (2) that the admission of partner or new partner is bona fide transaction that not a mere cover for sub-letting, he shall, if any application has been made in that behalf before the admission of such partner or new partner, allot the non-residential building in question afresh to the newly constituted or re-constituted firm." The proviso does provide that the application for allotment to the new partnership should be made before the admission of such new partner. There is no difficulty in the present case on that behalf. There is no difficulty in the present case on that behalf. There is no allegation in the petition that this partnership was entered into before 3rd June, 1977. On 3rd June, 1977 an order was passed permitting respondent no. 3 to take respondent no. 4 as a partner. Consequently the tenants had alleged that they had paid the rent and that allegation was in respect to the period after 3rd of June 1977. Consequently the application could be deemed to have been pending from before 3rd June, 1977. As such the admission of a new partner was not made prior to the making of the application or prior to permission granted to them on 3-6-1977. There is yet a third aspect of the case. The court below has come to a concurrent finding that the partnership was bonafide and respondent no. 4 was taken as a partner without any sub-letting. This finding that the partnership was a bonafide partnership is a finding of fact and binding on me in the writ petition. 6. IN the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. - Petition dismissed.