A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) By means of this petition, the validity of an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dehradun dated 4-8-78 is assailed.
(2.) These are the relevant facts. One Prabha Ram was the original tenant of shop No. 39/40, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun-On 2-4-1976, he moved an application to admit Devender Singh (through whom this petition has been filed) as a partner for doing business in electronic goods with the petitioner. This application was moved in pursuance of the provisions contained under proviso (a) to Rule 10 (6) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972-hereinafter referred to as the Act). This sub-rule empowers the District Magistrate to allot a non-residential building to a partnership firm if he comes to the conclusion that the partnership is a bona fide transaction and not a mere cover for subletting. This application was accompanied by affidavits of Prabha Ram and Devender Singh aforesaid as well as a no objection certificate from the landlord, namely, Jang Bahadur. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer caused an enquiry to be made in pursuance of this application and, thereafter, by an order dated 7-5-1976 directed that the order of allotment be made as prayed for. In pursuance of the said order, an order of allotment was passed in favour of partnership consisting of Prabha Ram and Devender Singh. Subsequently, on 31-5-1976, the respondent No. 3 Ramesh Kumar Kohli filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that the aforesaid order of allotment had been obtained by suppression of material facts as well as by misrepresentation of facts.
(3.) This application was contested by Prabha Ram and Devender Singh. The landlord Jang Bahadur also filed an objection reiterating that the partnership was a genuine transaction, and that in any case, he had recognised Devender Singh and Prabha Ram as his tenants prior to coming into force of U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, as a result of which, the 'tenants who were in occupation of an accommodation with the consent of the landlord prior to the coming into force of the said U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 (prior 5-7-1976) are entitled to continue to be in occupation, even though there may be no order of allotment in their favour.;