ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This writ petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below, decreeing a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent 3, Jagbans Kumar, for the ejectment of Om Prakash and Som Prakash (respondents 4 and 5 in this petition respectively and defendants 1 and 2 in the suit giving rise to this petition) and the petitioner (arrayed as defendant 3 in the suit) from an accommodation of which the plaintiff is the owner and the landlord, having purchased the same from its previous owner under a sale deed dated 22-5-1972. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below. 2. The suit was filed by the said respondent on the ground that the accommodation in dispute which is a shop had been illegally sub-let by the defendants 1 and 2 to defendant 3 without the consent of the plaintiff. The defendants were therefore liable to be evicted in view of S. 3(l)(e), U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. 3. The suit was contested only by the petitioner on the assertion that one Chand Mai, the father of the defendants 1 and 2 was originally the tenant. He had taken the petitioner as a partner in the business being carried in the shop. Chand Mai executed a will in favour of the petitioner on 20th July, 1971 under which he purported to confer exclusive ownership and tenancy rights in respect of the shop in suit in favour of the defendant 3, Chand Mai died on 24-7-1971 from which date therefore the said defendant became a tenant in his own right. The plea that defendants 1 and 2 had sub-let the accommodation to the defendant 3 was also denied. 4. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision under S. 25, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge though with the finding that the petitioner had been inducted into the shop as a sub-tenant by Chand Mai. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ petition No. 6455 of 1979 which was allowed by this Court on the ground that the finding of the learned District Judge in revision that the petitioner had been inducted into the shop by Chand Mai was contrary to the plaintiffs case. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ petition No. 6455 of 1979 which was allowed by this Court on the ground that the finding of the learned District Judge in revision that the petitioner had been inducted into the shop by Chand Mai was contrary to the plaintiffs case. The learned District Judge was therefore directed to dispose of the revision afresh. The learned District Judge has by the impugned order again dismissed the petitioner's revision with the finding that the petitioner was illegally inducted into the accommodation by the defendants 1 and 2 and that the will set up by the petitioner was of no legal effect. 5. The petitioner has therefore again come to this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the learned District Judge that the petitioner has been admitted as a sub-tenant without the permission or consent of the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 2 again suffers from the same error in that it is against the pleadings of the plaintiff. I find no substance in this contention. The clear case of the plaintiff was that the sub-letting had taken place subsequent to the death of Chand Mai and while defendants 1 and 2 were the tenants of the accommodation. The finding of the learned District Judge is to the same effect, namely, that defendant 3 stepped into possession with effect from July 24, 1971 on the death of Chand Mai and inasmuch as petitioner was permitted by the heirs of the original tenant to occupy the shop exclusively, the transaction clearly amounted to creation of a sub-tenancy as there was no permission from the landlord. The case fell squarely within the meaning of S. 3 (1) (e) of the aforesaid Rent Control Act of 1947. 7. The next contention of the learned counsel was that the view taken by the court below that it was not permissible under the aforesaid Rent Control Act of 1947 to transfer possession and tenancy rights by means of a will, is wrong. He argued that while such a prohibition may be read into new Rent Control Act, namely, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction, Act no such bar can be implied under the old Act of 1947. I am unable to accept the above contention. He argued that while such a prohibition may be read into new Rent Control Act, namely, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction, Act no such bar can be implied under the old Act of 1947. I am unable to accept the above contention. In two decisions of this Court reported in 1979 All W. C. 404 : (1979 All LJ 849) (Ratan Lal v. Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr) and (1980) 6 All LR 589 : (1980 All LJ 755) (Devendra Kumar v. 3rd Addl. D. J., the view expressed by this Court on this question is that under the 1972 Act the tenant is prohibited from transferring possession otherwise than in accordance with law in favour of any one and that there cannot be a testamentary disposition of tenancy rights in view of the clear scheme of the enactment. The ratio of these two decisions is fully applicable to the petition under the old law (1947) as well. In both the aforesaid decisions it was pointed out that under 1972 Act there is a complete control and regulation of letting of an accommodation upon the tenant ceasing to occupy the same and that the matter of allotment and release of the same is scrupulously controlled and regulated by the authorities constituted under the enactment. Referring to Sections 12, 20 and 25 of the 1972 Act it was observed that there is an express prohibition against sub-letting without the consent of the landlord. It was ultimately held that these provisions pointed unmistakably to the conclusion that testamentary disposition of tenancy rights was alien to the scheme of the Act. 8. In my opinion, the position under the 1947 Act was basically the same in so far as this aspect is concerned. There also, under S. 7 there was a prohibition against letting of an accommodation which had fallen vacant. The letting was controlled wholly by the District Magistrate,. Again under S. 7 (3) there was a prohibition against the tenant's sub-letting any portion of the accommodation in his tenancy, except with the permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate previously obtained, just as there is under the new Act. 9. The letting was controlled wholly by the District Magistrate,. Again under S. 7 (3) there was a prohibition against the tenant's sub-letting any portion of the accommodation in his tenancy, except with the permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate previously obtained, just as there is under the new Act. 9. The basic scheme as reflected by the 1972 Act, therefore, which persuaded the learned Judge of this Court to take the aforesaid view as regards the validity of bequests of tenancy rights was substantially the same under the 1947 Act as well as indicated above. The will set up by the petitioner was hence of no legal effect. The conclusion of the court below that the defendants 1 and 2 having illegally allowed the petitioner to occupy the shop without the consent of the landlord, they will be deemed to have sub-let the accommodation within the meaning of S. 3(1 )(e) of 1947 Act, is hence right. 10. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but I make no order as to costs.