JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This appeal by the tenant was heard by me at length and most of the controversies were decided in the order passed by me on 23rd of December, 1982. Two additional issues were framed and were remitted to the trial Court for its findings and the same have since been received in favour of the landlord. Objection against the findings has been filed by the Appellant and I have also heard parties Counsel at length. The issues remitted to the Court below were as under: 1. Whether in view of the allegations made in the application 19/C, the Defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether on the material available on the record on 14-7-79 it was a fit case in which defence should be ordered to be struck off? 2. On the first question, the Court below has returned a finding that the Defendant had failed to deposit the entire amount of rent or compensation as admitted to be due by him by the date of first hearing and had thus failed to comply with the requirement of Order 15 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. On the second question also, the Court has recorded a finding that the grounds on which application C-22 was based explaining the delay in depositing the amount was based on false grounds and, therefore, the defence was liable to be struck off. Sri. Rajendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, now has not assailed any of the findings returned by the Court below. However, what he has urged is that the Plaintiff's suit was liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the Plaintiff had let out the premises to the Defendant in 1974 without first obtaining an order of allotment which was in violation of Section 11 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Relying upon the decision Naveen Chandra Sharma v. 6th Addl. District Judge, Meerut AIR 1983 All. 116 the learned Counsel submitted that the very contract of tenancy being against law, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any indulgence by the Court. 3. Even on admitted facts, the contention raised above cannot stand scrutiny. The notice of termination of tenancy was given to the Defendant on 5th October, 1976 and was actually served on him on 8th October, 1976. 3. Even on admitted facts, the contention raised above cannot stand scrutiny. The notice of termination of tenancy was given to the Defendant on 5th October, 1976 and was actually served on him on 8th October, 1976. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted on 14-5-1977. Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was drastically amended by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 which was enforced from 5-7-1976. This section reads as under: 14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2A), or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any Court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building. 4. A plain reading of the Section will show that a legal fiction has been created by this provision in respect of those tenants who were in occupation of any building covered by the Act immediately before 5-7-1976 when the amending Act was enforced with the consent of the landlord, the only exception being that no suit or proceeding for eviction should be pending against such person on the date of such commencement. If this pre-condition was satisfied, though in contravention of Section 11 and without an allotment in his favour, his tenancy stood automatically regularised and it was not open for the parties to urge that on account of absence of allotment order, the contract of tenancy was void. 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the case Banarsi Dass v. III Addl. District Judge 1979 ARC 455 where a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the tenant was let in the dispute premises in June 1975 and had applied for regularisation of his possession u/s 14 of the Act on June 11, 1975. It would be of interest to note here that on that date the provisions of U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 had not come on statute book. It would be of interest to note here that on that date the provisions of U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 had not come on statute book. The Court in that case was merely interpreting the words used in Section 14 as it existed prior to the amendment. In those circumstances, the Court observed that before occupation of a person actually in possession of the premises covered by the Act could be regularised u/s 14, it was necessary to find out whether he was in occupation of that accommodation with the consent of the landlord and the same was under some legal right. Under the earlier provisions, occupation which could be regularised must have continued from before U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was enforced on 15-7-1972. In view of the amendment in the provisions of Section 14, the said case is of no help to the Appellant. 6. Reference was also made to the case of C.L. Gopal Vs. Smt. Santosh Anand and Another, (1982) AWC 514 where a learned Single Judge of this Court was again dealing with a matter to which the provisions of Section 14 as it stood prior to the amendment were applicable. The learned Judge at one place has observed as under: By the amendment, the licensees and tenants who were in occupation on the date of enforcement of the amended provisions i.e. 5th July, 1976, they would also be deemed to be authorised tenants or licensees. The matter can be raised and decided in any proceeding, but no proceeding u/s 14 of the Act is contemplated. 7. I fully agree with the view expressed therein and on the language of Section 14 as it stands, by the legal fiction created thereunder, any person who was in possession of any premises as a tenant with the consent of the landlord immediately before 5-7-1976 would automatically be deemed to be a tenant under the Act notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11 to the contrary. In the present case, the admitted position is that the Defendant Appellant came to occupy the premises in 1974 and as seen earlier before the amending Act was enforced, the tenancy in his favour was continuing. It was only after 5-7-1976 that a notice terminating his tenancy u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued and a suit was filed for his eviction much later. It was only after 5-7-1976 that a notice terminating his tenancy u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued and a suit was filed for his eviction much later. In these circumstances, by self-operating provisions of Section 14 of the Act, the Defendant became a tenant whose tenancy stood regularised with effect from 5-7-1976 on the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976. That being the position, it is not open for the Appellant to say that there was no valid tenancy in favour of the Defendant prior to its termination by notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also not open to the Counsel to place reliance on the case reported in AIR 1983 All 116 . 8. In the above circumstances and also in view of the findings recorded by the Court below on the two questions remitted to it, I am of the view that the defence of the Appellant had been rightly struck off and thereafter on the available evidence, the Court rightly refused to entertain his application for condoning the delay in making the deposit. I further hold that there was no bar in terminating the tenancy of the Appellant for want of a valid allotment order and as such the appeal has no force and merits to be dismissed with costs. The order passed by me in this appeal on 23rd December, 1982 shall form part of this judgment.