The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced in May that it was to examine whether restaurants faced the prospect of getting a worse deal under the proposed £200m tie-up - distorting competition in the process.
In the summary of provisional findings, published by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), a group of independent panel members investigating the merger has found that, on balance, it is unlikely to result in competition concerns.
Their business models work by providing a food ordering platform and delivery drivers to restaurants. In comparison, Hungryhouse gives customers the choice from more unique brands.
It said: "The industry is evolving rapidly following the entry of platforms, such as Deliveroo, UberEATS and Amazon, which also manage or facilitate delivery services on behalf of restaurants".
The CMA also took into account that many consumers order directly from restaurants over the phone...
The group found that Hungryhouse presently provides limited competition to Just Eat because it is much smaller in size and offers too few unique restaurants, making it increasingly hard for Hungryhouse to attract and retain consumers.
Martin Cave, chairman of the inquiry, said: "We found that Hungryhouse was a weak competitor to Just Eat and so competition is unlikely to be substantially reduced by this merger, especially given the entry and rapid expansion of innovative suppliers in this sector".
Just Eat said it welcomed the announcement and said in a statement it looked forward to "continuing to deploy our technology and expertise to help more independent restaurants develop and grow their businesses".
Just Eat, where former Moneysupermarket boss Peter Plumb was appointed new chief executive in July, naturally said it was pleased with the decision and said it expected the final decision in November.
Just Eat paid £200m for Hungryhouse, which it bought from Delivery Hero, back in December of previous year.