JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') regularising the possession of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 in relation to the portions of the accommodation found in their possession. 2. It appears that originally, M.L Sharma was the tenant of the accommodation. He was transferred to Bereilly and left his brother-in-law, J.P. Sharma in occupation. In due course the petitioner Kripa Shankar Sharma came and started living with J.P. Sharma who was his uncle. The landlady, respondent No. 3, instituted a suit for ejectment of M.L. Sharma, and Kripa Shankar Sharma, was also implement as defendant in that suit. The suit ultimately was dismissed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes, Kanpur on the finding that ever since the transfer to M.L Sharma, J.P. Sharma had been in possession and he was paying rent and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlady and J.P. Sharma, and that J.P. Sharma, was not a stranger. 3. It appears that subsequently Sheo Charanlal Sharma, respondent No. 1 also joined J.P. Sharma and started living with him. He was the brother of J.P. Sharma. Later J.P. Sharma died in 1971. Thereafter dispute arose between the petitioner who was the nephew of J.P. Sharma and Sheo Charanlal Sharma, respondent No. 1 who was his brother. The dispute led them both to the Court of the Prescribed Authority under the Urban Buildings Act of 1972. Both wanted an overall allotment or regularisation of the portions in their possession of the accommodation in dispute. 4. The Prescribed Authority after detailed review of the material on record came to the conclusion that two rooms were in the possession of the petitioner Kripa Shankar Sharma while three rooms were in the exclusive possession of Sheo Charanlal Sharma respondent No. 1 and that they were both legal heirs of J. P. Sharma the deceased tenant, though under the Hindu Succession Act Sheo Charanlal Sharma was the preferential heir, being the deceased's brother. In the circumstance possession of both parties was regularised in view of Section 14 of the Act. Aggrieved, Kripa Shankar Sharma has come to this Court in writ petition. 5. In the circumstance possession of both parties was regularised in view of Section 14 of the Act. Aggrieved, Kripa Shankar Sharma has come to this Court in writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 14 of the Act the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to split up the accommodation. Admittedly the accommodation was the one in the occupation of M.L. Sharma, as tenant and after him of J.P. Sharma. The Prescribed Authority split up the accommodation by regularising the possession of both the parties with respect to the portions of the accommodation which he had no jurisdiction to do. 6. We are, however, not impressed by this submission. On facts it has been found that soon after the death of J.P. Sharma both parties to the present litigation were in exclusive possession of different portions, the petitioner being in possession of two rooms and respondent No. 1 of three rooms of this accommodation. In fact, therefore, the two parties had already split up the accommodation in two distinct portions over which each was claiming exclusive possession. The fact that in the present litigation both parties claiming either regularisation or allotment over the whole appears, in view of the findings, only an exaggeration of their legitimate claims. In this situation it cannot be reasonably said that the Prescribed Authority had split up the accommodation in dispute. He found the accommodation already split up and he regularised possession of both parties. It is noticeable that the landlady has not come up against the impugned order. Since the finding of fact is that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of only two rooms, we find no illegality in the order of the Prescribed Authority, regularising his possession in respect of that portion alone. 7. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.