JUDGMENT : - J.C. Mishra, J. This petition has been filed for writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11-11-98 (Annexure 16 to the petition) passed by Additional City Magistrate II/rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar declaring vacancy under Section 12 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 4972 (hereinafter called the Act for convenience) with regard to Godam situated on plot resident No. 64/59 located in Gareria Mohal, Kanpur which is in pos session of the petitioner. 2. THE undisputed facts are that the Godam in question previously belonged to Murali Dhar who transferred it to Smt. Aruna Mishra, respondent No. 2. THE landlady filed an application for release under Section 16 (1) of the Act. On enquiry the petitioner was found to be in possession of the godown. THE petitioner intimated that godown was part of tenancy of Jagarnath alias Jaggu Lai who carried on business in the name and style of firm Santosh Kumar Kamlesh Kumar a registered firm since 1975 and regularly paid rent amounting to Rs. 31. THE petitioner also claimed that he was partner of the said firm which was registered on 31-7-66. The landlady filed objection, inter alia, that the firm Satyendra Kumar Kamlesh Kumar was not in existence and the previous tenant Jagarnath alias Jaggu Mai has died. The petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the said godown and, therefore, it was vacant within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act. 3. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer gave opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence by affidavits and documents. THE learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner was a partner with the previous tenant Jagarnath and the business place according to the partnership deed was Generalganj, Kanpur, the said firm had no connection with the godown in question and since the petitioner was neither heir nor family member of Jagarnath, he was not entitled to retain possession over the godown. He also held that the partnership deed was not connected with the premises in question. With these observations the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the godown in question as vacant and directed notification of the vacancy. 4. He also held that the partnership deed was not connected with the premises in question. With these observations the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the godown in question as vacant and directed notification of the vacancy. 4. THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the firm was tenant of the premises in suit and both the partners, namely, Jagarnath and the petitioner were carrying business and using godown for the purposes of the firm. He contended that as the petitioner was not inducted after coming into force of the Act, he could not be said to be an unauthorised occupant. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground that the place of business of the firm was shown as Generalganj. He has, however, not recorded any finding whether the firm was tenant of the godown in question or whether Jagarnath was in possession in his individual capacity or as partner of the firm. Without recording any finding the Rent Control and Eviction Officer assumed that Jagarnath was tenant of the godown presumably in personal capacity and even if the petitioner Krishna Kumar Awasthi was in possession since 1965-66 he could utmost be sub-tenant. It was also observed that Krishna Kumar Awasthi was neither heir nor family member of Jagarnath and, therefore, he could not be treated as partner nor his rights to retain the premises could be recognised. 5. It was also observed that Krishna Kumar Awasthi was neither heir nor family member of Jagarnath and, therefore, he could not be treated as partner nor his rights to retain the premises could be recognised. 5. IT appears that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made this observation in view of the proviso (a) to sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called-Rules, for convenience) which provides that if the District Magistrate is satisfied in a case referred to Section 12 (2) that the admission of partner or new partner is bonafide transaction and not a mere cover for sub-letting, he shall, if any, application had been made in that behalf before the admission of such partner or new partner allot the non-residential building in question afresh to the newly constituted or re-constituted firm and sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act which provides that a tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof, if any, a case of 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 as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. IT is in view of this provision the learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that even if the possession of the petitioner since 1965-66 is accepted, he would not be deemed to be tenant as he was neither heir nor member of the family of Jagarnath. 6. ON consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer should have considered whether Jagarnath alias Jaggumal was tenant in his personal capacity or whether the firm itself was tenant. The firm even if its place of business of Generalganj could take the godown in question on rent or storing the articles and, therefore, it was necessary to have recorded a specific finding whether the firm was part of the godown in suit or not. The firm even if its place of business of Generalganj could take the godown in question on rent or storing the articles and, therefore, it was necessary to have recorded a specific finding whether the firm was part of the godown in suit or not. The learned counsel for the con testing respondent contended that since a firm is not legal entity it could not be let out any premises nor a firm could be the tenant. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Sangam Lal Gupta v. I. Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1981 All. CJ 457, which was decided by Hon'ble R. B. Lai, J., on 3-4-84. It was held that subject to specific provision in the Act a firm cannot be taken to be capable of becoming a tenant. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dull Chand Laxmi Narain v. Com missioner of Income Tax, AIR 1956sc354, wherein it was held that a firm unless expressly provided for the purpose of any statute is not a legal entity. 7. IT cannot be disputed that in absence of specific provision in the Act a firm could not be a legal entity. The question arises whether the firm despite not being a legal entity could become the tenant or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a latter decision of this Court decided by the same Hon'ble Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. B. Lai in the Surgical Clinic and Nursing Home, Civil Lines, Kanpur and another v. District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1984 (2) All. Rent Cases 92, decided on 20-4-84. The attention of the Hon'ble Judge was brought to clause (a) of the proviso to sub- rule (6) of Rule 2 which provides that the District Magistrate shall allot the non-residential building in question afresh to the newly constituted or reconstituted firm. In view of this provision it was held "when the law itself provides for allotment in favour of the firm, the allotment order cannot be treated as null and void on the ground that the firm is not a legal person. " In view of the latter decision the correct legal position is that a firm is capable of becoming a tenant. " In view of the latter decision the correct legal position is that a firm is capable of becoming a tenant. In view of this legal position it becomes necessary that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer should consider whether the godown in question was in the tenancy of the firm. 8. THE petitioner had claimed to be in possession over the godown in question since 1965-66 i.e. before the commencement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was held by Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Kesar Bai v. District Judge, Mathura and others, 1980 Alld. Rent Cases 223, that Section 12 (2) of the Act is prospective and it applies only to cases in which event of admit ting a partner has taken place after the commencement of the Act. It was ob served that the use of word "admit" in Section 12 (2) shows that the case of ad mission of partners before the commencement of the Act does not fall within its purview. It was clarified that Section 12 (2) cannot be applied to cases where partners had been taken before the commencement of this Act. In view of the decision of the Full Bench the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the petitioner was in possession along with Jagarnath alias Jaggumal since before the commencement of the Act he could not be treated as unauthorised occupant nor the godown in question could be declared vacant within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The controversy must be decided afresh in accordance with the law considering the decisions referred to above and] other pronouncement that are brought to the knowledge of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 9. THE petition is allowed. THE impugned order is set aside. THE respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the controversy involved afresh in accordance with the law. Petition allowed.