ORDER K.M. Dayal, J. - The present petition has been filed by Har Prasad, allottee of the disputed premises. The facts as found by the courts below are that Manohar Lal landlord was the tenant (sic) of the disputed accommodation. He entered into a partnership with one Sheo Narain on 4-11-1970. The partnership deed-is on record as Annexure 2' to the writ petition. Under that deed, the partners were to do the business and the business was to be managed by Shiv Narain. Manohar Lal was to get one-fourth share in the profit and loss in the business. Alleging subletting on the basis of the partnership aforesaid an application for allotment was made. A vacancy was declared and consequently the impugned allotment order was passed on 3/6-5-1976. 2. The possession of the shop was obtained with police aid on 3-7-1976. An application was made under S. 16(5), U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for cancelling the allotment order as there was no vacancy. The vacancy was declared deeming the disputed accommodation to be vacant under S. 12(2), U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to a finding .hat it was not the allottee who was in possession but it was the landlord himself who had been found in possession on 13th and 31st Aug. 1976 by the Senior Inspector. It found that the disputed shop was declared vacant illegally and the landlord had not acted fairly and the allottee was not in occupation. A revision was filed against the aforesaid order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. That revision was dismissed by the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Kanpur. The allottee has come up in the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the tenant had taken up a person in partnership who was not a member of his family there was a vacancy under S. 12(2) of the Act. He further argued that there was a vacancy under S. 12(l)(b) as well Consequently the vacancy was rightly declared and the allotment order was rightly passed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. He further argued that there was a vacancy under S. 12(l)(b) as well Consequently the vacancy was rightly declared and the allotment order was rightly passed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The partnership deed is on record and the terms of the partnership show that the tenant was to get only th share in the profit and loss wherein all the investment had to be made by the other partner. The other partner was given th share. It was further contemplated that if the tenant got the shop vacated or was ejected by the landlord within* ten years the other partner was entitled to realise damages, to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- from him. Such a partnership cannot be said to be a fake partnership. The partnership appears to be genuine. 5. The courts below have also given a finding of fact that the partnership was genuine and consequently I, sitting in the writ petition, am unable to hold that the partnership was a cover for sub-letting. 6. The second argument of the learned counsel was that there was a deemed vacancy under S. 12(2) of the Act. Subsection (2) of S. 12 provides that in case of a non-residential building if a new partner, who was not a member of the family of the tenant, was taken, the tenant should have been deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. The U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 came into force on 15th of July 1972. Obviously this penal provision cannot be given retrospective effect. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a Full Bench case Smt. Keshar Bai v. District Judge, Mathura reported in 1980 All Rent Cas 223 : (1980 All L J 199). That Full Bench clearly laid down that the provisions of Sub-s. (2) of S. 12 of the Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act were not retrospective. The partnerships which were continuing from before the enforcement of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not to be affected. The provision could hit only such contracts of partnership which came into being after the enforcement of the Act. I am bound by and am in respectful agreement with the decision in the case of Keshar Bai (supra). 8. The provision could hit only such contracts of partnership which came into being after the enforcement of the Act. I am bound by and am in respectful agreement with the decision in the case of Keshar Bai (supra). 8. The other argument of the learned counsel was that there was a vacancy under S. 12(l)(b) of the Act as well. Section 12(l)(b) applies where the tenant had allowed the accommodation to be occupied by any person who was not a member of his family. In the instant case there was no such occupation. According to the petitioner it was the other partner who was in exclusive occupation. Under S. 19, Partnership Act, there is an implied agency in favour of every partner. The partner by entering into the business does not become the tenant nor has any interest therein. He has no right to occupy the business premises as such. Further there being an implied agency in favour of the partner even the possession of the stranger partner will be only as a partner of the tenant who will continue to be in possession. The real tenant is never ousted and the partner does not get any right or interest in the tenancy. I therefore am unable to agree with the petitioner that the tenant by creating a partnership prior to the enforcement of the Act has in any manner invited the penal consequences provided under S. 12(l)(b) of the Act. 9. The last argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that he had taken possession of the disputed accommodation on 3rd July 1976. U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was amended with effect from 5th July 1976 by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976. Section 14 of the Act was amended and it was provided that any tenant who was in possession of any accommodation with the consent of the landlord on the date of enforcement of the amending Act (5th July 1976) would be deemed to be an authorised tenant of such building. In the present case the only evidence on record is that possession was taken by the allottee through police force on 3rd of July 1976. Possession was not taken from the landlord. In the present case the only evidence on record is that possession was taken by the allottee through police force on 3rd of July 1976. Possession was not taken from the landlord. I enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner if there was any material on the record to prove that any contract of tenancy took place between him and the landlord, by payment of rent or otherwise, prior to 5th July 1976. The learned counsel could not refer to any evidence on record show such consent or acceptance of tenant by the landlord. Under the circumstances the petitioner could not be held to be in possession of the building with the consent of the landlord on the material date. The finding of the authorities below does not suffer from any error. The petitioner was not entitled to benefit of S. 14 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a case decided by a learned single Judge of this court reported in 1981 All Rent Cas 194 : (1981 UPLT NOC 49) Smt. Kishori v. District Judge, Banda. The learned single Judge held that the payment of rent does not amount to consent as contemplated by S. 14 of the Act, if rent was accepted by the landlord after 5th of July, 1976. In the instant case the only averment of the petitioner is that the rent has been paid to the landlord. There is no averment that such rent has been paid prior to 5th of July 1976. I do not find any material in the petition which could show the actual date of payment of rent to the landlord. No rent receipt has been produced nor the landlord has come forward to support the allottee. In the present petition he has also not been able to produce any consent of the landlord on the date of taking possession of the premises through police force. 11. Under these circumstances I do not find any force in this petition. A legal tenant was dislodged in an illegal manner by obtaining allotment at his back and misrepresentation of facts. He has been kept out of possession for about 6 years. He has been kept out of possession for about 6 years. 11. Under these circumstances I do not find any force in this petition. A legal tenant was dislodged in an illegal manner by obtaining allotment at his back and misrepresentation of facts. He has been kept out of possession for about 6 years. He has been kept out of possession for about 6 years. The petitioner does not have any equities in his favour. I am not inclined to grant any time to the petitioner. He is not entitled to any sympathy. 12. In the result, the present petition fails and is dismissed with costs.