ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This is a petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the concurrent orders passed by the courts below in respect of an accommodation bearing No. 7. Both the courts below have held that the respondent No. 3 is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction), Act 1972. 2. Shortly stated the relevant facts are these:- The petitioner admittedly is the owner of the room in dispute. He moved an application for the release of the room on the ground that it was vacant, the previous tenant Smt. Ratan Priya having vacated the same and illegally sublet it to Praksh Chand respondent No. 3. Prakash Chand contested the application on the ground that he was in occupation of the room with the consent of the owner as a tenant right from the year 1968. The trial court held that the respondent No. 3 was a sub-tenant in the room in dispute and was in occupation with the consent of the landlord. In the view of the trial courts the respondent No. 3 was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act which provides for regularisation of tenants and licences in occupation of an accommodation with the consent of the landlords, but without an order of allotment. These findings have been affirmed in appeal by the District Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the courts below have erred in law in giving to the respondent No. 3 the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act inasmuch as, Section 14 is applicable only to cases of occupation of an accommodation by a tenant, or licence within the meaning of Section 2-A of the aforesaid Act. He urged that according" to the finding of the lower appellate court the respondent No. 3 was at best a sub-tenant of Smt. Ratan Priya and that a sub-tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the other hand urged that the respondent No. 3 was claiming to have been in possession of the room in dispute with the consent of the owner as a tenant directly from the owner ever since 1968. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the other hand urged that the respondent No. 3 was claiming to have been in possession of the room in dispute with the consent of the owner as a tenant directly from the owner ever since 1968. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that this case should go back to the learned District Judge for a fresh decision. 5. The respondent No. 3 has been in possession of the room in dispute that is, room No. 7 with the consent of the owner as has been found by both the courts below. That finding is a finding of fact which is affirmed in this writ petition. However, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefit of Section 14 is available only to a tenant from the (owner or to a licence as defined under (Section 2-A of the aforesaid Act. In order, therefore that an occupant may claim the benefit of Section 14 he has to fall under one or the other category of the persons mentioned above namely tenants and licences under Section 2-A. The lower appellate court has disposed of the case on the short ground that even as a sub-tenant the respondent No, 3 was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. That view appears to be incorrect and is clearly opposed to the view of this court expressed in several cases (See for example the case reported in 1979 All WC 404, Ratan Lal v. Addl. District Judge). The learned District Judge has however, not gone into the further question whether the respondent No. 3 is not a tenant directly from the owner. If the respondent No. 3 is held to be a tenant directly from the owner. He would clearly be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. 6. In view of what has been stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge dated 18-11-1977 are quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to hear and dispose of the Rent Control Revision No. 252 of 1976 afresh according to law having regard to the observations made by me in this Judgment. The parties will bear their own costs of this petition.