Judgment : SUDHIR Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated!4-12-1993 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy. 2. THE dispute relates to shop No. 76/281 Latouche Road, Kanpur Smt. Balwant Kaur was its erstwhile owner. She let out the said shop to the petitioner on 6th May, 1972 and a rent note was executed by the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. THE petitioner started business in the shop in the name and style of M/s Ajai Rubber Company. She had taken Subhash Chandra, brother of her husband, as partner. A partnership deed was executed on 18th October, 1972, wherein a mention was made that the deed was effective from 1st day of. June, 1972. THE business was being carried on in the firm's name. Sometimes in 1978-79 another business was started in the name of Diamond Sales Corporation but within a year it was closed and the business of M/s. Ajai Rubber Company continued. The erstwhile landlady sold the property to Smt. Amarjeet kaur and Manjeet Singh, respondents No. 1 and 2, by registered sale deed on 29-5-1988. The respondents gave a notice on 27-9-1988 intimating the petitioner that they had purchased the disputed property. In the year 1991 respondents filed application for release of the shop under Section 16 (i) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that the petitioner had inducted Subhash Chandra Jain, her brother-in-law, as a partner and after the enforcement of the Act it shall be taken as vacant under Section 12 (2) of the Act. They required the shop in question for personal need. 3. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 27th June, 1992, declared the vacancy on the ground that the petitioner had taken Subhash Chandra Jain as partner in the firm who is not a member of the family as defined under Section 3 (g) of the Act. THE petitioner filed writ petition No. 23088 of 1992 against the said order. THE writ petition was allowed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to decide as to since when Subhash Chandra Jain was taken as partner by the petitioner in the firm. THE petitioner filed writ petition No. 23088 of 1992 against the said order. THE writ petition was allowed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to decide as to since when Subhash Chandra Jain was taken as partner by the petitioner in the firm. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer has passed the impugned order dated 14-12-1993 holding that the partner ship business of the firm commenced after 5th July, 1972 and, therefore, the accommodation should be treated as vacant under Section 12 (2) of the Act. 4. I have heard Shri K. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri K. L. Grover, learned counsel for the respondents. The main thrust of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the premises in question was taken on 6th May, 1972, and the petitioner had taken Subhash Chandra Jain, her brother- in-law as partner on 1st June, 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the business of the firm commenced after 5th July, 1972, and, therefore, partnership shall be treated to have come into existence from the date of commencement of the business: 5. THE view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is erroneous. THE execution of the partnership deed is not necessary for admitting a person as partner in the business. THE contract of partnership may be oral and the partnership deed may be executed later on. THE business may be started from a different period after the necessary resources are available for carrying on partnership business. THE partner ship deed was admittedly executed on 18th October, 1972 but the partnership deed it self makes a mention that it was effective from 1st day of June 1972. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to record a finding as to when the contract of partner ship was entered into between the petitioner and Subhash Chandra Jain. THE mere fact that the document was executed on 18-10-1972 was itself not conclusive. THE version of the petitioner was that for the purpose of registration with the Income Tax Department a partnership deed was necessary and with that view the partnership deed was executed on 18th October, 1972. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer should have considered that shop in question was taken on 6-5-72 by Smt. Brij Bala Jain. She intended to carry on business in partnership with some one. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer should have considered that shop in question was taken on 6-5-72 by Smt. Brij Bala Jain. She intended to carry on business in partnership with some one. Later on she entered into partnership with her husband's brother. 6. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer took the view that the partnership business commenced after 18th October 1972 and for that purpose he relied upon the survey done by the Sales Tax Officer as Form 'c' was taken by the petitioner for the purpose of business on 5th December, 1972 and the first sale transaction had taken place on 13th October, 1972. These documents may establish that the business started sub sequent to the date of entering into the partnership but the fact as to when the business commenced was not relevant. It is al ways possible that the parties may enter into partnership contract but they may be unable to carry on business for want of resources. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer without recording the finding as to when the contract partnership was entered into can not hold that the petitioner had admitted her brother-in-law in partnership after the enforcement of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 merely on the basis that the partnership business commenced after 12th October, 1972. There is no dispute that prior to the enforcement of the said Act a tenant could have taken a person as partner in the business vide Seth Laxmi Chand v. Nathu Mal Duli Chand, 1965 A. L. J. 1000. Section 12 (2) was held not to be retrospective in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Kesar Bai v. District Judge Mathura and others, 1980 A. R. C. 223. There is another aspect of the matter. The shop in dispute is situate in House No. 76/281, Latouche Road, Kanpur. The erstwhile landlady Smt. Balwant Kaur, was residing in a portion of this building. She was fully aware of the fact that the business was being transacted in the name of Ajai Rubber Company in the premises in question. She had never raised any objection regarding admission of Subhash Chandra Jam as partner in the firm. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondents urged that the erstwhile landlady might not be knowing as to who were partners of the firm. She had never raised any objection regarding admission of Subhash Chandra Jam as partner in the firm. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondents urged that the erstwhile landlady might not be knowing as to who were partners of the firm. It is a question of fact which could have been considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer it is not disputed that the erstwhile landlady was residing in the same building where the shop in dispute is situate. In case the landlady had consented such admission of a partner for fairly long period of 16 years without any objection and further by the landlord-respondents three years after the purchase it will be deemed that they have consented to admission of the partner. 7. IN case the tenant had taken any person as partner after enforcement of the Act, who is not a member of the family, the petitioner could have taken steps for declaration of vacancy for violation of Section 12 (2) by the tenant. It is true that there is no limitation for taking such steps either by the landlord or by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Where the Act does not pro vide for specific limitation for taking such action, the Court has held in various decisions that it should be within a reasonable time. IN Mansaram v. S. P. Pathak and others AIR 1983 SC 1239 wherein the landlord had permitted to occupy the per son in violation of Order 22 of Central Provinces and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949,their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that when the power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable time and made the following observation: "exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, no limitation is prescribed in this behalf but one would stand against that a landlord to some extent in part delicto could turn the tables against the person who was in possession for 22 years as a tenant. Undoubtedly, no limitation is prescribed in this behalf but one would stand against that a landlord to some extent in part delicto could turn the tables against the person who was in possession for 22 years as a tenant. IN such a situation, even though the House Allotment Officer was to reach an affirmative conclusion that the initial entry 22 years back was an unauthorised entry and that failure to vacate premises till 9 years after retirement was not proper, yet it was not obligatory upon him to pass a peremptory order of eviction in the manner in which he has done. IN such a situation, it would be open to him not to evict the appellant." 8. WHAT should be taken as reasonable time for initiating the proceedings under a Statute, when it does not pro vide for any limitation, will depend upon various factors Viz. the mischief sough to be removed, the remedial measures to be taken against an action or the nature of the benefit conferred on the parties under the Statue. In any case, twelve years period should be taken as reasonable time for initiating the proceedings under the Statute from the date cause of action arises for taking action. The period may be extended in exceptional circumstances which has to be proved by the person who initiates the proceedings after twelve years. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the facts and circumstances of this case was also required to consider as to whether the erstwhile landlady had knowledge of the admission of Subhash Chandra Jain by the petitioner to her partnership business. These aspects have not been considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The impugned order dated 14-12-1993 is hereby quashed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law. Petition allowed.