JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 partly allowing an application for release of a portion of premises No. 11/26 Gwal Toli (Suterganj, Civil Lines), Kanpur. 2. These are the relevant facts. The premises in dispute were originally in the tenancy of a firm named Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons. The Petitioner purchased the premises in dispute from its former owner in the year 1974. After the purchase of the property, the Petitioner moved an application dated 18-9-74 for the release of the premises u/s 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on the allegation that she had purchased the property on 19-4-1974. Her husband had retired from service as a result of which he had to leave the official accommodation. The Petitioner and her family did not have any other house available with them for their residence. The tenant Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons were not themselves occupying the accommodation, but had illegally sublet the various portions of the premises to different individuals. The premises were, therefore, liable to be deemed vacant and as the landlady bona fide required the same for her own use, the same were liable to be released in her favour. 3. The former tenant, Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons filed an objection and asserted therein that the accommodation was not vacant. It was alleged that the in various employees, namely Basdev, Ambika Prasad, Sri Ram Verma, Ram Aneka, Ram Ganesh and Govind Ram were in occupation of the building in question on their behalf. As for G.D. Mehrotra, (the Respondent No. 4 who died during the pendency of the writ petition), it was alleged that he was in occupation of a portion of the accommodation as their licensee, being a "paying guest" of theirs. It was, therefore, denied that the accommodation was vacant. 4. G.D. Mehrotra also filed an objection claiming the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act on the ground that he was in occupation of a portion of the aforesaid premises right from the year 1958 with the consent of the landlord and that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the said Act. It was further alleged that he was paying a sum of Rs. 60/- per month to Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons as "paying guest charges". 5. It was further alleged that he was paying a sum of Rs. 60/- per month to Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons as "paying guest charges". 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid application of the landlady and the objections referred to above, the Prescribed Authority caused an enquiry to be made by the Rent Control Inspector. The Rent Control Inspector subrnitted a report to the effect that all the persons who were jfound in occupation of the building, except G.D. Mehrotra, were unauthorised occupants. He also reported that the proprietor of Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons was residing in his own house elsewhere and was not in occupation of the premises in question. His report was that except the portion which was in occupation of G.D. Mehrotra, the rest of the premises were liable to be declared vacant and released. 6. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 16-12-1975, upon a consideration of the report and other evidence on the record held that the entire premises, except the portion in occupation of G.D. Mehrotra were liable to be deemed "vacant" as they were not in occupation of Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons or their employees, but were in occupation of certain unauthorised occupants, and that the same were, therefore, liable to be released-in favour of the Petitioner. In regard to the portion in occupation of G.D. Mehrotra the Prescribed Authority held that the same was lawfully in occupation of G.D. Mehrotra and could not, therefore, be released. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, two appeals were filed, one by the landlady and the other by Messrs P.D. Gooba & 'Sons. Both the appeals were converted into revisions upon amendment of -Sec. 18 of the aforesaid U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Both these revisions have been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur by his order dated 29-10-1976. 8. The Writ Petition is directed against the aforesaid two orders. The learned District Judge has held that on the facts of this case the portion in occupation of G.D. Mehrotra must be deemed u/s 14 of the aforesaid Act to have been allotted to him. 9. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the courts below committed a patent illegality in giving to G.D. Mehrotra, the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. 9. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the courts below committed a patent illegality in giving to G.D. Mehrotra, the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. The contention was that G.D. Mehrotra had himself claimed to have been residing in the premises only as a "paying guest" of Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons, and that the learned District Judge, therefore, fell into a manifest error of law in holding that Sri Mehrotra was in occupation of the premises as a tenant of Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons with the consent of the landlord. It was urged that the finding of the learned District Judge was clearly against the own pleadings of G.D. Mehrotra and was, therefore, manifestly unsustainable in law. 10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find no merits in this petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed strong reliance on the averments made by G.D. Mehrotra in his affidavit filed in support of Jiis objection. Particular emphasis was laid on paragraph 2 of the said affidavit a true copy of which has been annexed to the petition and is marked Annexure "4". In paragraph 2 of this affidavit, it has been stated that G.D. Mehrotra and his family were living in a portion of the premises in question on payment of Rs. 60/-as "paying guest charges". Learned Counsel contended that when it was the own case of G.D. Mehrotra that he was only a "paying guest", the learned District Judge could not legally record a finding that Shri Mehrotra was a sub-tenant of Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons. 11. I do not agree. While it is correct that in the affidavit of G.D. Mehrotra, he was described himself as a "paying guest" there is no manner of doubt that in substance, he was claiming to have been in occupation of the premises as a tenant of P.D. Gooba & Sons. In the same affidavit to which the learned Counsel for the Petitioner made reference, there are averments which are wholly inconsistent with the status of G.D. Mehrotra as a mere "paying guest". G.D. Mehrotra has asserted in this affidavit that he held a ration card for himself and members of his family in which the address given is that of the accommodation in dispute. G.D. Mehrotra has asserted in this affidavit that he held a ration card for himself and members of his family in which the address given is that of the accommodation in dispute. He has further mentioned that in the voters' list also, the members of his family have been shown as residing in these premises. It is further pleaded that in the various municipal assessments made in regard to the premises in question, as disclosed by Nagar Mahapalika records, G.D. Mehrotra and his family members have throughout been shown occupying the accommodation as tenants thereof. The address of G.D. Mehrotra and the members of his family right from the year 1958 has throughout been shown as 11/26, Civil Lines, Kanpur. 12. These and other averments in the said affidavit clearly show that G.D. Mehrotra was clearly claiming to have been in exclusive occupation of the accommodation upon payment of a certain sum of money (erroneously described as 'paying guest charges') every month to the tenant-in-chief, namely, Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons for over a period of sixteen years or more and upto the point of time when the present proceedings commenced. The finding recorded by the courts below is, therefore, in consonance with the case pleaded by G.D. Mehrotra. 13. Furthermore, on the facts found by the courts below, it is clear that Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons were at no time, during this long period in occupation of the premises or any part thereof. It is not as though G.D. Mehrotra was residing in the accommodation with the proprietor of Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons as the Tatter's guest. 14. It seems established on the record that G.D. Mehrotra was in exclusive-possession over the accommodation in question for over sixteen years. Equally proved seems to be the fact that P.D. Gooba & Sons were not exercising any right or control over the possession and use of the accommodation by G.D. Mehrotra during this long period. Such a state of things is consistent only with the status of G.D. Mehrotra as a tenant and not a licensee. 15. The mere use of the nomenclature "paying guest" in the pleadings of G.D. Mehrotra was, therefore, not of any significance. It is the substance of the relationship and not the label used which determines the issues whether a person in occupation is a mere licensee or a tenant. 15. The mere use of the nomenclature "paying guest" in the pleadings of G.D. Mehrotra was, therefore, not of any significance. It is the substance of the relationship and not the label used which determines the issues whether a person in occupation is a mere licensee or a tenant. So construed the finding of the courts below that G.D. Mehrotra was a tenant of P.D. Gooba & Sons appears to be correct and was fully borne out by the evidence on the record, and, as stated above, is, perfectly in accord with the pleadings of G.D. Mehrotra. 16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner next placed strong reliance on Annexure "C" to Annexure "3" of the writ petition. Annexure "C" purports to be a copy of the letter written by Rameshwar Prasad Bagla, the then owner of the premises in dispute to Messers P.D. Gooba & Sons. This letter is dated 20-6-1968 and it says that R.P. Bagla was allowing Messers P.D. Gooba & Sons to take Mr. G.D. Mehrotra as "guest" only. I find no substance in this argument. As already stated, it is not the nomenclature by which the relationship is described, but its substance which is determinative of true legal status of the person inducted into the tenanted premises. 17. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that Sri G.D. Mehrotra enjoyed the status of a tenant and not as a mere "paying guest" of the chief tenant. Furthermore, the fact that Sri G.D. Mehrotra remained in exclusive occupation of the accommodation over a period extending over sixteen years, without any objection whatsoever from the owners and without any control from the tenant-in-chief and further that G.D. Mehrotra was paying a certain sum of money every month to the tenant-in-chief in lieu of such exclusive and uninterrupted possession, clearly leads to the conclusion, that the owner had by their conduct impliedly given consent to the continuance of G.D. Mehrotra in his status as a j tenant vis-a-vis the tenant-in-chief. The finding of the court below, therefore, that G.D. Mehrotra was in occupation of the accommodation in dispute as a tenant of Messrs P.D. Gooba & Sons on the date relevant for consideration of an application u/s 14 of the Act, with the consent of the landlord is a, Ending which is fully borne out by the materia} on the record. 18. 18. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited a few decisions of this Court in support of his contention that consent must be positively proved in each case (See Ratan Lai v. The Additional District Judge Bulandshahr 1979 AWC 404 and Dr. (Mrs.) Gyan Thapa v. The District Judge, Allahabad 1978 AWC 820 . It is indisputable that the consent must be proved. In the present case the courts below have found that the consent has been proved. The finding of the courts below that Sri G.D. Mehrotra was in occupation with the consent of the landlord is a finding which appears to be fully justified by the evidence on record and is certainly not vitiated by any error of law. The cases cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are, therefore, not of any assistance and do not take the matter any further for him. 19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Moinuddin Vs. Ch. Mohammad Imam-Uddin Ashraf, AIR 1972 All 25 in support of his contention that evidence of the party which is inconsistent with his pleadings cannot be looked into. The proposition is unexceptionable. However, it has no application to the facts of the present case. I have already found above that the finding of the courts below is not inconsistent with the pleadings of Sri G.D. Mehrotra. 20. There are no merits in this writ petition which is consequently dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.