Judgment : SUDHIR Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20-7-1987, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 1, rejecting the application of the landlord-respondent No. 3 for declaring the disputed premises as vacant and releasing it in his favour under Section 16 (l) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order dated 27-9-1988, passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid, order. 2. THE facts in brief are that respondent No. 3 is tenant of premises No. 104-A/211, 'p' Road, Kanpur. He is carrying on the business in the name of Matri Sewa Sadan since the year 1964. THE business was being carried on in partnership with Sri Anvar Nath Tandon and Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey. Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey expressed his desire to retire from the partnership and he actually retired with effect from 30- 3-1969. After he retired from the partnership, a deed of partnership was executed on 1st April, 1969 between Sri Amar Nath Tandon and respondent No. 3. In the said partnership Sri Shyam Nath Tandon, younger brother of respondent No. 3 was admitted to the benefit of the partnership, Sri Shyam Nath Tandon in the year 1959 was aged about 18 years. He attained majority on 12th October, 1976. On his attaining majority another partnership deed was executed between Sri Amar Nath, Shyam Nath Tandon and respondent No. 3 on 4th August, 1977. THE business of the partnership was the same. Clause 15 of the Partnership deed provided that the firm as constituted shall be deemed to be successor in the business carried on by the firm prior to the date of reconstitution and assets, liabilities and benefits accruing on the existing contracts of the prior firm shall belong to the reconstituted firm. THE partnership shall continue to carry on the business. The petitioner purchased the disputed premises in September, 1984. After about three years of the purchase of the premises in question, he filed an application in the year 1987 under Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act on the ground that he requires the premises bona fide. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 has admitted his younger brother Shyam Nath Tandon as partner in his firm on 4th August, 1977. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 has admitted his younger brother Shyam Nath Tandon as partner in his firm on 4th August, 1977. It shall be deemed as vacant under Section 12 (2) of the Act inasmuch as Shyam Nath Tandon is not a member of his family as defined under Section 3 (g) of the Act. This application was contested by respondent No. 3. It was alleged that he has not admitted him as a tenant in the year 1977 but he was, in fact partner since the year 1969 and is continuing to work in that capacity till today. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that respondent No. 3 did not admit his younger brother Sri Shyam Nath Tandon as partner. He was already partner since the year 1969. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by his order dated 20-7-1987. The petitioner filed revision against the said order. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision on 27-9-1988. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri S,d. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and iri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents at length. 4. SECTION 12 (2) of the Act provides that in case of a non-residential building where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new, partner, a the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. This provision is prospective as has been held in Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesar Bai v. District Judge, Mathura and others, 1980 A. R. C. 223. This decision has been followed subsequently vide Bhawar Singh Jai v. Collector and District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar and others, 1984 ARC 310. Prior to the enforcement of the Act No. 13 of 1972, a tenant was entitled to carry on any business himself in the tenanted premises or through partnership with others. There was no provision that he will not admit any person as a partner for the purpose of carrying on business. Prior to the enforcement of the Act No. 13 of 1972, a tenant was entitled to carry on any business himself in the tenanted premises or through partnership with others. There was no provision that he will not admit any person as a partner for the purpose of carrying on business. He was, however, not entitled to transfer the tenancy rights in the garb of entering into partnership with other persons and the Court was entitled to find out she true nature of the partner ship vide Seth Laxmi Chand v. Nath Mai Dutichand and another, 1965 ALJ 1000. In case the petitioner had taken his brother as partner prior to is c enforcement of the Act, he is entitled to continue the business in partnership with those persons without affecting his tenancy rights. The sole question is whether Shyam Nath Tandon has been admitted as partner after the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the partnership deed was executed on 4th August, 1977 wherein Shyam Nath Tandon was taken as a partner in the firm. 5. IT is not denied that a partnership deed was executed on 1st April, 1969 between Sri Amar Nath Tandon and respondent No. 3. In the said partnership deed Sri Shyam Nath Tandon was also taken as a partner when he was minor aged about 12 years. He was admitted to the benefits of partnership under Section 30 (a) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which provides that a person who is minor according to the law to which he is subject may not be a partner in the firm, but with the consent of all the partners, he may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The partnership deed dated 1-4-1969 annexed as Annexure 4 to be writ petition clearly specifies that Shyam Nath Tandon is being admitted to the benefits of partnership. His share was specified therein. He attained majority on 12-10-1976. under the provisions of the Partnership Act it was for him to remain as a partner or to give notice that he does not want to continue as a partner of the firm. On his attaining majority the partners agreed to execute a fresh partnership deed on 4-8-1977. The business was the same and Amar Nath Tandon and Shyam Nath Tandon are shown as partners. On his attaining majority the partners agreed to execute a fresh partnership deed on 4-8-1977. The business was the same and Amar Nath Tandon and Shyam Nath Tandon are shown as partners. The partnership deed is substantially the same as on 1-4-1969. The mere fact that the fresh partnership deed was executed on attaining the majority by Shyam Nath Tandon, does not establish that he was admitted as a partner in the year 1977. Under sub-section (5) of Section 30 of the Act if a partner was minor and admitted to the benefits of partnership, on attaining majority can give notice that he elects to become a partner or that he has elected not to become a partner of the firm and such notice shall determine his position as regards the firm, but in case he fails to give such notice, he shall become a partner of the firm on the expiry of six month. The Proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 30 clearly contemplates that a minor who was admitted to the partnership does not give any notice, he shall be deemed to become a partner of the firm after the expiry of six months on his attaining majority. He continues to be a partner of the firm and it is not treated as fresh admission to the partnership. Sub-section (6) provides that if any person has been admitted as partner of the benefits of partnership in a firm the burden of proving the fact that such person had no knowledge of such admission until a particular date after the expiry of the six months of his attaining majority shall lie on the person asserting that fact. Sub-sections (1), (5) and (6) of Section 30 of the Partnership Act are as under : " (1) A person who is a minor according to the law to which he is subject may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of all the partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership. * * * * (5) At any time within six months of his attaining majority or of his obtaining knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership, whichever date is later, such person may give public notice that he has elected to become or that he has elected not to become a partner in the firm, and such notice shall determine his position as regards the firm: Provided that if the fails to give such notice, he shall become a partner in the firm on the expiry of the said six months. (6) Where any person has been admitted as a minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm, the burden of proving the fact that such person had no knowledge of such admission until a particular date after the expiry of six months of his attaining majority shall lie on the persons asserting that fact. " Shyam Nath Tandon was admittedly admitted to the benefits of partnership in the year 1969 and he shall be treated to be a partner of the firm 'matri Sewa Sadan' since prior to the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The mere fact that that the fresh partnership deed was executed on 4-8-1977 on his attaining majority will not change his character as that of a partner in the firm which was existed in the year 1969. 6. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Ram Nath Yadav v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and others, 1995 (2) ARC 401, wherein it was held that if a new partner is not member of the family, and he is admitted to a partnership after the enforcement of the Act, the accommodation shall be deemed as vacant under Section 12 (2) of the Act. In this case it was admitted that with effect from 1st April, 1976, daughter-in-law of one Ramdin Gupta was admitted to a partnership who was not member of the family if the erstwhile partner of the firm. In Harsh Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad and others, 1995 (1) ARC 220, their Lordship of the Supreme Court held that admission of son-in-law in partnership amounts to admission of a person who is not member of a family as defined under Section 3 (g) of the Act and the accommodation can be deemed as vacant. In Harsh Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad and others, 1995 (1) ARC 220, their Lordship of the Supreme Court held that admission of son-in-law in partnership amounts to admission of a person who is not member of a family as defined under Section 3 (g) of the Act and the accommodation can be deemed as vacant. In M/s. Supreme Pharmacy and others v. District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1983 ALJ 173, the Court held that clause (a) of sub-section (6) of Rule 10 is an exception to the consequences which flow from admission of a partner or a new partner who is not a member of the tenant's family in respect of the business being carried on in the building under Tenancy. These cases have no application to the facts of the present case in view of the finding that Shyam Nath Tandon was not admitted as a new partner after the enforcement of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the provision of Indian Partnership Act will not override the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 38 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Transfer of Property Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is urged that if any provision of the Partnership Act is inconsistent with the scheme of the present Act that will have no application in view of the specific provision as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act does not provide that any minor who has already been admitted to the benefits of the partnership, if elects to continue to be a partner on attaining majority shall be treated as new partner or shall be taken to have been admitted to the partnership. In absence of any such provision there is no inconsistency between the provisions of Section 30 of Partnership Act and sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. 7. IN the result, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.