JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner is directed against the orders passed by the Rent Control of Eviction Officer and IInd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri. 2. Petitioners are owners of premises No. 259/1 and 259/5 situate in mohalla Mohammad Mah, Station Road Shikohabad in the district of Mainpuri. The petitioners let out the premises in dispute to Western U.P. Electric Supply Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and it remained in their occupation till it was taken over by U.P. State Electricity Board in pursuance of Ordinance No. 137 of 1975 which was subsequently replaced by an Act No. 14 of 1976. The petitioner moved an application for release of the premises in their favour on the ground that the company having ceased to occupy the premises, there has arisen a deemed vacancy in respect of premises in dispute within the meaning of Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The said application was rejected. The revision preferred against the said order also met with the same fate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Ordinance or sub-section (3) of Section 6-A of the Act does not save the tenancies of the former undertakings whose licence stands revoke under the Act. sub-section (3) of Section 6-A of the Act reads as follows :- "6-A(3) On revocation of the licence under sub-section (2), the following provisions shall have effect, namely :- (a) every undertaking the licence in respect of which stands revoked shall by virtue of this section stand and be deemed to have stood transferred to and vest and be deemed to have vested in the State Electricity Board, hereinafter in this section called 'the Board' free from any debt, mortgage or similar obligation of the licence attaching to the undertaking." 4. The short question which arises for consideration is an to whether the tenancy in favour of the undertaking is saved by sub-section 3 of Section 6-A of the Act. In R.C. Kooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 564, the word 'undertaking' used, in the Indian Electricity Act and various other statutes came for consideration. The short question which arises for consideration is an to whether the tenancy in favour of the undertaking is saved by sub-section 3 of Section 6-A of the Act. In R.C. Kooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 564, the word 'undertaking' used, in the Indian Electricity Act and various other statutes came for consideration. It was held by the Supreme Court that the word 'undertaking' is meant 'the entire organisation.' The word 'undertaking' indicates that the company whether it has a plant or whether it has an organisation is considered as one whole unit and the entire business of the going concern is embraced within the word 'undertaking'. What is contemplated, therefore, by sub-section (3) of Section 6-A is that the undertaking of each existing licence shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, powers, privileges and all property and all other rights and interests arising out of such property as were immediately before the commencement of this Act in the ownership, possession, power or control of the undertaking. The U.P. Electricity Board having stepped into the shoes of the undertaking under law they became the tenants of the premises in dispute. Since by operation of law U.P. Electricity Board came in possession of the premises in dispute it is not a case where the earlier undertaking has allowed the premises to be occupied by the U.P. Electricity Board within the meaning of Clause (b) of the sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. In view of the fact there was no deemed vacancy in the premises occupied by the U.P. Electricity Board, the application for release of the premises was rightly rejected. 5. There is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.