- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This petition by Munna Lal, who alleges himself to be the tenant of the accommodation in question, has been filed against the order of City Magistrate/rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura dated 2-5- 2000, whereby Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura had declared deemed vacancy under Section 12 (2) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has relied upon the document of Munna Lal who has admitted that one Sri Salim Khan is partner, who has been admitted as the partner of the shop without the consent of the landlord and thus the shop is deemed to be vacant under Section 12 (2) of the Act.
(2.) SRI A. N. Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the partnership under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act cannot be said to affect the partnership which is under the Indian Partnership Act and that the possession cannot be said to be of partner or new partner so that the tenant may be deemed to have ceased to occupy the accommodation in question merely because he has taken a portion in the partnership which is otherwise prohibited under the Act. The contention of SRI Bhargava has no force. Reading of sub- section (2) of Section 12 of the Act,which is reproduced below : " (2) In the 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. " Puts a restriction that if a tenant admits a person as a partner or a new partner in business he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the accommodation in question and there is deemed vacancy within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act nowhere talks of the possession. Sri Bhargava appears to have borrowed the idea of possession with partner from the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. According to Sri Bhargava, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has committed an error. In my opinion and in view of Section 12 (2) of the Act, there is no error of law. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has come to a conclusion that there is deemed vacancy which, for reasons stated above, cannot be said to be erroneous. No other point has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed. .;