Judgment – By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-10-1981, passed by I Additional District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Revision No. 40 of 1980 and Rent Control Revision No. 42 of 1980, whereby the judgment and order dated 20-03-1980, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kashipur, releasing the shop in question under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is set aside. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that petitioner Mahesh Kumar purchased a double storied house in Mahalia Ganj in the town of Kashipur (earlier part of District Nainital) on 04-01-1977 from one Gopal Krishan and others. It is alleged that the entire house was in a dilapidated condition and Gopal Krishan and others, the previous owners, got the lower portion of the house released from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 14-05-1976, on the ground that it was required for re-construction. After purchase of the house, petitioner also moved an application (not the present in question) under Section 16 of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for release of upper portion of the house, which was previously occupied by one Kishori Lal and on his death, it became vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowed said application also, and released the upper portion of the building vide order dated 17-05-1977. The petitioner demolished that portion for the purpose of reconstruction. However, only shop in dispute remained to be demolished. As such, the petitioner moved an application under Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, for release of said shop on the ground that it has fallen varant as the same is in unauthorized occupation of respondent No.3 (Ram Avtar), and also on the ground that it is in a dilapidated condition. It is alleged that the disputed shop was let out by the previous landlord Gopal Krishan to Satya Prakash (respondent No.7) in the year 1967-68, who used to carry business in the name and style of M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shyam Pan sari Mr. It is alleged that the disputed shop was let out by the previous landlord Gopal Krishan to Satya Prakash (respondent No.7) in the year 1967-68, who used to carry business in the name and style of M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shyam Pan sari Mr. Babu Ram was grandfather of Satya Prakash and Redhey Shyam was his father. Mr. Satya Prakash carried the business for about two years and thereafter the shop remained closed. Mr. Ram Avtar (respondent No.3), who is husband of sister of Satya Prakash, then occupied the shop in dispute and started doing business of rope and jute in the disputed shop. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 is in unauthorized occupation of the shop and it caused the deemed vacancy under Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Respondent No.3 was not member of family of Satya Prakash, therefore, the petitioner moved an application under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act for release of the shop, as mentioned above. 4. Respondent No.3 Ram Avtar, the occupant of the shop, filed his written statement before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and denied that he was an unauthorized occupant in the shop. It is pleaded by him that he runs the shop in the name and style M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shyam. He further alleged that Beni Ram and Radhey Shyam, sons of Babu Ram, were the tenants in the shop and after their death, he (respondent No.3) is looking after the business. It is also denied by respondent No.3 that the shop was in a dilapidated condition. 5. On the application moved by the petitioner, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for the report from Rent Control Inspector, who submitted his report that the shop is in dilapidated condition and occupied by unauthorized person-Ram Avtar. Petitioner in support of his case submitted the sanctioned plan for re-construction of the building and also filed report of approval valuer, apart from the other documentary evidence and affidavits showing dilapidated condition of the building. The petition further filed documentary evidence obtained from State Electricity Board and the Office of the Labour Inspector showing that it is Ram Avtar (respondent No.3) alone who is running business of a proprietary firm in his own name. The petition further filed documentary evidence obtained from State Electricity Board and the Office of the Labour Inspector showing that it is Ram Avtar (respondent No.3) alone who is running business of a proprietary firm in his own name. The Municipal Board on receiving complaint from one Manohar Lal also issued notices to the petitioner, after inspection was made by the Junior Engineer to take steps for demolition of the dilapidated shop, in the public interest. Meanwhile, a Suit No. 291 of 1977 was instituted by Beni Ram, brother of Radhey Shyam, for injunction against the Municipal Board, Kashipur, seeking injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the shop. Said Suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29-05-1981 by Munsif, Kashipur. After considering the evidence on record, and hearing the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 2003-1980, in Rent Control Case No. 11 of 1978-79, allowed the application releasing the disputed shop in favour of the landlord (the petitioner) with the condition that after re-construction, the landlord shall let out reconstructed shop to the opposite party (Ram Avtar). Aggrieved by said judgment and order, both the parties, i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.3, preferred separate revisions before the District Judge, Nainital. Said Rent Control Revisions No. 40 of 1980 and 42 of 1980 were transferred to the court of I Additional District Judge, Nainital, who after hearing the parties, 2110wed the appeal filed by Ram Avtar and set aside the judgment and order dated 20-03-1980, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in Rent Control No.11 of 1978-79, and dismissed the revision filed by the landlord. Hence, this writ petition was filed by the landlord before the Allahabad High Court against the judgment and order dated 2310-1981 , passed in aforesaid two rent control revisions in the year 1981 , where it (writ petition) was admitted on 10-11-1981. The writ petition is received by transfer to this Court, under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 6. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was set aside, is challenged by the petitioner (landlord) inter alia on the ground that the said authority (respondent No.1) committed error of law in ignoring the documentary evidence of the experts on the record regarding dilapidated condition of the building. 6. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was set aside, is challenged by the petitioner (landlord) inter alia on the ground that the said authority (respondent No.1) committed error of law in ignoring the documentary evidence of the experts on the record regarding dilapidated condition of the building. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is misinterpreted by aforesaid authority to come to the conclusion that Ram Avtar became tenant of the shop as the same was nobodies case before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 7. Respondent No.3 Ram Avtar and his legal heirs contested the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Ram Avtar (respondent No.3) it is denied that building is in a dilapidated condition. It is alleged that the petitioner got released the other tenements of the building in collusion of the tenants. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the demolition and re-construction of rest of the building except the disputed shop was done by the petitioner with mala fide intention. It is further stated that before impugned judgment and order was passed by the respondent No.1 (I Additional District Judge, Nainital), the disputed shop was inspected and after satisfying that the building is not in a dilapidated condition the revision of respondent No.3 was allowed by said authority. In paragraph No.17 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that there was a joint family business of Kanhaiya Lal, father of Babu Ram, which used to run in the name and style on M/s Kanhaiya Lal Babu Ram (which was later on carried on in the name and style M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shyam). It is admitted to the answering respondent that Gopal Krishan was the original landlord of the shop in question. It is further stated that the business of M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shyam was being run by Ram Avtar (the answering respondent). Defending the impugned order it is stated that the revisional court (respondent No.1) has rightly found that the tenancy of respondent No.3 (Ram Avtar) was protected under Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 8. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 9. Defending the impugned order it is stated that the revisional court (respondent No.1) has rightly found that the tenancy of respondent No.3 (Ram Avtar) was protected under Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 8. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 9. It is not disputed between the parties that original landlord of the shop in dispute was one Gopal Krishan. It is also not disputed that respondent No.3 was in possession of the shop at the time when application under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, was moved before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowed the application with the finding that respondent No.3 was unauthorized occupant in the shop and also that the same was in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction. The revisional court (respondent No.1) seta side the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer holding that the tenancy of respondent No.3 was validated by the provisions of Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and as such, he was not an authorized occupant. The revisional court further held that after spot inspection, it found that the shop is not in a dilapidated condition. 10. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here, the provision contained in Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which reads as under: "14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the amendment of Section 2-A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the 90nsent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building. " 11. The first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. " 11. The first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, is that the revisional court has misinterpreted and misconstrued the provision of Section 14, quoted above, for it is nobody's case before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that landlord has consented to treat Ram Avtar as his tenant. After going through the provisions of the aforesaid Act, this Court is of the view that Section 14 was legislated by the Legislature to protect those tenants of the building covered under the Act, inducted as tenants in the building without compliance of the provisions of the Act. From the record it is also evident that neither anywhere before the authorities below, petitioner (landlord) has taken a plea that Ram Avtar was consented to be treated as a tenant, nor was it a case of Ram Avtar (respondent No.3) before the courts below that he is a tenant in that way. The revisional court has invented a new case which was beyond the pleadings of the parties and the finding recorded by the revisional court to that extent is against the evidence on record and against the provisions of law. What the respondent No. 3 had pleaded before the authorities below is that he was running the business of M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shyam, who were the tenants in the shop. 12. Shri Alok Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of contesting respondents (respondent No.3 and his heirs) argued that original landlord Gopal Krishan let out the shop in question to Kanhaiya Lal, whose family used to run the business in the name and style of M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shyam. It is further pointed out that respondent NO.3 is related to said family, as he is husband of Smt. Prabha Devi, daughter of Radhey Shyam. Referring to Section 3(g) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which defines word 'family' and Section 3(a) of the said Act, which defines word 'tenant', it is argued that since Radhey Shyam was tenant of the building, as such, after his death, under Section 3(a) of the aforesaid Act, the tenancy was inherited by his heirs including daughter Prabha Devi as the house was a non residential building. After death of Smt. Prabha Devi, Ram Avtar (respondent No.3) being her spouse, is included in the family of one of joint tenant, as such, his possession cannot be held to be illegal or unauthorized one. 13. It is pertinent to mention here the relevant provisions of law to which learned counsel for the contesting respondents has referred. Word 'tenant' is defined in Clause (a) of Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which reads as under: "(a) ''tenant'', in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death or his heirs; (1) in the case of a residential building, such only of is 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. " Clause (g) of Section 3 of aforesaid Act, defines word 'family', as under: "(g) "family", in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her (i) spouse (ii) male lineal descendants, (iii) such parents grand-parents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her, And includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building. " Relevant provisions of Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which He late to deemed vacancy of a building, are reproduced hereunder: "12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases. (1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if (a) he has substantially removed his effects there from, or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family or (c) in the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere. (2) In the 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, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. (3) In the case of a residential building........... ....... (3) In the case of a residential building........... ....... (3-A) If the tenant of a residential building. . ... . .... . .. . . . . . (3-8) If the tenant of a residential building............... (4) Any building or part which a landlord or tenant has ceased to occupy within the meaning of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), sub-section (3), sub-section (3-A) or subsection (3-8), shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be deemed to be vacant." 14. The revisional court in his impugned judgment has discussed at length that it was Radhey Shyam, who was tenant in the building. The said court has discussed, in detail entire evidence brought on record, which corroborates this fact that it was Radhey Shyam, who was the tenant in the building. This Court does not feel it necessary to re-appreciate said evidence in the writ jurisdiction. Once fully discussed finding of fact is there on the record that Radhey Shyam was the tenant, in view of the abovementioned quoted provisions of law, on death of Radhey Shyam (prior to the initiation of the present proceedings by the landlord) the tenancy was inherited by his heirs under Section (3)(a)(ii). The heirs of deceased Radhey Shyam included his married daughter Smt. Prabha Devi (respondent No. 13). That being so, if the joint tenant (Prabha Devi) permitted Ram Avtar (respondent No.3), her husband, to occupy the shop as he was a member of his (her) 'family', defined in Section 3(g) as quoted above, it cannot be said that there was deemed vacancy under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. The requirements of Section 12 are not fulfilled in the present case, as Ram Avtar (respondent No.3) being husband was member of the family, who was running the business in the shop in dispute. Therefore, this Court finds that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was wrong in holding that the shop is in occupation of an unauthorized person (Ram Avtar). As such, the revisional court (respondent No.1) committed no error on law in reversing said finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 15. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the fact that there is ample evidence adduced by the landlord that the electric connection was in the name of the Ram Avtar. 15. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the fact that there is ample evidence adduced by the landlord that the electric connection was in the name of the Ram Avtar. Apart from this, he also pointed out that the license to run business was also taken from the office of the Labour Inspector, in the name of Ram Avtar, as such, respondent No.3 (Ram Avtar) was running his business and not the business of the original teilant- M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shyam. Had Ram Avtar being no~ the member of the family of one of the joint tenant, as discussed above, this Court would have accepted the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid two facts i.e. electric connection and license from the Labour Inspector in the name of Ram Avtar, would have uprooted his case that he was looking after the business of M/s Babu Ram Radhey Shaym, but, since he is member of family of one of the joint tenants in a building used for commercial purposes, mere taking electric connection in his name or taking license from the Labour Inspector in his name cannot cause a deemed vacancy, as required under Section 12 of the U.P. Act No.'13 of 1972. 16. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the revisional court ignored judgment and decree dated 29-05-1981, passed by the then Munsif, Kashipur, in Civil Suit No.291 of 1977, whereby Beni Ram was not found to be tenant by said civil court. From the perusal of said judgment and decree, a copy of which is Annexure-20 to the writ petition, it does not appear, if Ram Avtar or Prabha Devi or Radhey Shyam were party to said suit. As such, even if said judgment and decree is read in evidence, it does not materially affect the fate of the case. 17. As far the dilapidated condition of the shop is concerned, there is factual satisfaction recorded by the revisional court (respondent No.1 ), after local inspection, that the shop is not in a dilapidated condition. In view of such factual satisfaction being made after local inspection by the authority itself, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. 18. In view of such factual satisfaction being made after local inspection by the authority itself, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. 18. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any error of law committed by respondent No.1 (151 Additional District Judge, Nainital) in reversing the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kashipur, releasing the shop in question on the ground that deemed vacancy has occurred. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.