Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction -Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act.)
(2.) THE petitioner, Bimal Kishore Paliwal is the owner of house No. 117, M.G. Sarwat Gate, Ansari Road. Muzaffarnagar. The house is occupied by two tenants-Shanti Swarup, Advocate and the 4th respondent, Virendra Verma. The petitioner moved an application on April 16, 1963 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, res pondent No. 3 for permission to file a suit for ejectment of his ten ants. This application was rejected on September 18, 1963. The pe titioner then filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The revision petition was allowed and the permission was granted to him. The State Government also refused to interfere with the order of the Commissioner under Section 7-F of the Act. Thereafter Virendra Verma filed a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was allowed, the order of the State Gov ernment was quashed as it did not contain the reasons and the mat ter was remanded to the Commissioner for rehearing. This time the Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioner. Thereafter he approached the State Government under Section 7-F and the State Government has also refused to interfere. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constiution. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sri Virendra Verma had not put the accommodation to his personal use and as such he was not entitled to retain the same. It is stated that he was using the accommodation first as an office of the Congress party to which he belonged and thereafter as an office of the B.K.D. which he joined later. It is argued that since the accomodation is not in the personal use of Mr. Verma, he was liable to be ejected. I am unable to accept this argument. Personal use of an accommodation is not restricted to its use as a residence or as a shop or as an office in connection with his own business or profession. If a person uses an accommodation as an office of an organisation of which he is a member, the user can be said to be personal as much as when houses it for his personal residence or office. The Commis sioner in an elaborate order has considered the need of the petitioner and has compared it with the need of the tenant. After such a com parison he has come to the conclusion that while the need of the pe titioner is not genuine, the need of the tenant is both pressing and genuine. This is a finding of fact and based as it is on relevant mate rial cannot be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE order passed by the State Government also does not suffer from any infirmity. This is an order of affirmance and, as such, it was not necessary for the State Government to reproduce the reasons recorded by the Commissioner.;