JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated 9-7-87 passed by the Munsif Sitapur exercising the powers of Prescribed Authority in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. Opposite party No. 2 Smt. Radha Devi filed the aforesaid case under Section 21 against the opposite parties No. 3, 4 and 6. Opposite party No. 4 has been described as "Sitapur Lime Company through its Proprietor, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, Greekganj, Sitapur City, Sitapur". It appears that Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta latter filed an application that he may be impleaded in his personal name. This application was allowed and he was impleaded as opposite party No. 2-A. Thereafter the present petitioner Smt. Kishan Lalli Gupta made an application for impleadment on the plea that opposite party No. 4 is a firm of which she is one of the partners. The Prescribed Authority rejected this application by the impugned order. In the impugned order the Prescribed Authority has observed that rent receipt is on record which shows that rent is being paid by Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta opposite party No. 5. Thereafter it has said that if Sitapur Lime Company is a firm it can sue or be sued in the firm name through its active partners and it is not necessary to implead all the partners. Then the Prescribed Authority states "She is partner in firm she may also represent the firm if she wants. Kishan Lalli Gupta, therefore, is not tenant of the premises in eye of law, therefore, application 85/C-2 is rejected." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Prescribed Authority has recognised the petitioner's right to represent the firm yet it has rejected the application. According to him the petitioner can effectively represent the firm and protect its interest only if she is a party to the proceedings and, therefore she should have been impleaded. The sum and substance of the finding is that from the rent receipt it appears that the tenancy is in the name of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta. He may be partner of the Firm Sitapur Lime Company and one of its partner may also be a partner therein. The firm is also a party to the proceedings and one of its partners namely, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta is also a party. He may be partner of the Firm Sitapur Lime Company and one of its partner may also be a partner therein. The firm is also a party to the proceedings and one of its partners namely, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta is also a party. This is sufficient. It is not necessary that all the partners of the firm should be impleaded. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim impleadment as a matter of right. 4. I do not find any law in this line of reasoning. It may be mentioned that an application under Section 21 line against tenant. If there is any dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant the same shall have to be decided. 5. Under Order XXX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is permissible for a firm to sue or be sued in the firm name. In the application under Section 21 the firm has been sued in the firm name. This is in consonance with the provisions contained in Order XXX, Rule 1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that a firm cannot be a tenant and, therefore, all the partners of the firm should be impleaded. For making this submission he has relied upon the definition of the term "Tenant" contained in Section 3 (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The definition reads as follows :- "Tenant" in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death - (1) in the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death; (2) in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs ; ...... ...... ......." 7. The above definition does not advance the purpose of the petitioner. Under the definition tenant is a person by whom rent is payable. In the present case the rent receipt shows that rent is being paid by Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta. 8. The next submission of the Learned Counsel is that Order XXX, Code of Civil Procedure, will not be applicable to the present case. For making this submission the Learned Counsel has referred to the Sections 34 and 38 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 34 enumerates the matters to which the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable. 8. The next submission of the Learned Counsel is that Order XXX, Code of Civil Procedure, will not be applicable to the present case. For making this submission the Learned Counsel has referred to the Sections 34 and 38 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 34 enumerates the matters to which the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable. The array of parties has not been specifically referred to in this provisions. Section 38 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act will have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Transfer of Property Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view of this provision if there is any conflict between the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Transfer of Property and the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions contained in the Act will prevail and not the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act and Code of Civil Procedure. So far as the making of an application under Section 21 against the firm is concerned there is no provisions to the contrary in the Act. The Act does not specifically provide that an application cannot be made against a firm where the tenancy is in the name of the firm. 9. In view of the above, the petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.