A. P. Srivastava , J. - (1.) This is a petitioner's Special Appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Tandon rejecting his petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The appellant is a tenant of house No. 5 Lowther Road, Allahabad. The house was allotted to him by an order dated the 17th of May, 1956. At that time the owner of the house was Shri Faiyaz Ahmad. He sold the house in August, 1957 to the respondent No. 2 Shri A. K. Sanyal. Having purchased the house, the respondent No. 2 made an application to the Addl. District Magistrate who was functioning as R.C.E.O. under the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to eject the appellant by bringing a suit against him in the civil court. The application was made under Section 3 of the Act. The ground on which permission was sought for was that the house was needed by the respondent for his personal occupation. The appellant opposed the application. The Addl. District Magistrate, however, granted the permission prayed for by the respondent. Against that order the appellant went up in revision to the Commissioner. The Commissioner heard the parties and set aside the order of the Addl. District Magistrate refusing to grant permission to the respondent to eject the appellant. The respondent No. 2 then made a representation to the State Government under Sec. 7-F of the Act and along with his representation he submitted an affidavit also. The State Government after receiving the representation and the affidavit sent them to the District Magistrate with a direction that they should be served on the appellant and should then be sent back to the State along with the version of the appellant and his counter affidavit. The District Magistrate directed the Addl. District Magistrate to serve copies of the representation and the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 on the appellant. Unfortunately for some reason though a copy of the representation was served on the appellant the copy of the affidavit was not given to him. In reply the appellant filed his version of the matter but did not file any counter affidavit. The papers including the version which the appellant had submitted were then forwarded to the State Government which in the exercise of its powers under Sec. 7-F of the .Act decided on the 24th of December, 1958, that it was in the interest of justice that permission should be granted to the respondent No. 2. The permission prayed for by him was therefore granted. The appellant then filed the petition out of which this appeal has arisen for quashing the order of the State Government and urged three contentions in support of the petition.
(3.) The first point he raised was that under Sec. 7-F of the Act it was ,obligatory on the State Government to send for the record of the case and to peruse the same. In the present case. however, the State Government had passed the impugned order without getting the entire record including portion of it which related to the revision before the Commissioner. The second ground was that Sec. 7-F of the Act did not authorise the State Government to grant permission when the same had been refused by the Commissioner. The third ground was that the order of the State Government was bad and ineffective because no adequate opportunity had been given to the appellant to meet the representation which the respondent No. 2 had made to the State Government. In this connection grievance was made of the fact that the Appellant had not been able to file a counter affidavit to meet the affidavit which had been filed by the respondent No. 2 in support of the representation he had made to the State Government.;