Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri J.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 15th February, 2003 passed by Revisional Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Aligarh allowing the revision No.19 of 2001 of respondent no.1 instituted against Rent Control & Eviction Officer's order dated 25th July, 2001 on the ground that tenant admitted a person not member of his family to run shop in question by handing over its possession and therefore has occurred a deemed vacancy in the shop in question. 3. An application was filed by respondent no.1 on 3.11.1998 before Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO) in respect to disputed shop i.e. Shop No. 15/22, situated at Madargate, Aligarh but the same was rejected by RCEO vide judgment and order dated 25th July, 2001 observing that since erstwhile landlord/owner of shop in dispute did not institute any dispute against petitioner or his father for ejectment, meaning thereby sub letting to petitioner's father, which devolved upon him, was with the consent of erstwhile landlord. It is this order which has been reversed by Revisional Court by means of impugned judgment. 4. In the entire pleadings before RCEO there was no averment which shows that erstwhile landlord ever was aware of sub letting of shop to petitioner or his father. It is not in dispute that tenant, to whom shop in question was let out, himself was paying rent to the landlord and in absence of any pleading or finding that landlord earlier at any point of time came to know of any alleged sub letting taking place before 1972, consent of landlord in respect to the sub letting cannot be presumed. It as a matter of fact has to be proved by pleading or evidence. Since petitioner failed to demonstrate that he came to possession in the shop in question before enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), in my view, Revisional Court has rightly held that there was a clear case of sub letting in violation of Section 12 of Act, 1972 and therefore, there was vacancy in the shop in question, which was not liable for regularization under Section 14 of Act, 1972. The order of RCEO, therefore, was clearly erroneous, which has rightly been set aside by Revisional Court. 5. Moreover, Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that shop in question was already taken possession by respondent-landlord even before filing of present writ petition and during pendency of writ petition in the last nine years, roof of shop is in such a dilapidated condition that virtually only walls are standing and the roof is falling down. 6. Be that as it may, since I find no manifest error in the impugned judgment, there is no reason to interfere with the same. 7. Dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _____________