Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granting permission to the opposite party No. 4 to file a suit for ejectment against the applicant be quashed.
(2.) THE applicant is the tenant of the whole of the ground floor of house No. 11/327, Southerganj, Kanpur and has been living there as a tenant since the beginning of 1943. Mrs. Chheda Lal was the owner of the said house from 1943 to 1945, when she sold the house to one Ram Chandra. On the 17th August, 1952, the said Ram Chandra sold the house to one Sri Krishna Lal who is arrayed as opposite party to the present petition. Sri Krishna Lal is living in the same house in the first, second and third floors. On the 26th August, 1952, Sri Krishna Lal made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur for permission to eject the applicant under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. This application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties by his order dated 1st April, 1953. The opposite party, thereupon, applied to the District Magistrate, Kanpur for the cancellation of the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer refusing the permission. The District Magistrate heard both the parties and after considering the objections raised by the applicant, on the 3rd of May, 1953, passed an order cancelling the previous order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer refusing to grant the permission to eject the applicant and directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to grant the opposite party permission to eject the applicant. After this order had been passed by the District Magistrate on the 3rd May, 1953, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 11th May, 1953 granted the opposite party Sri Krishna Lal permission to eject the applicant. A revision was filed by the applicant against the second order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 11th May, 1953 before the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad. The applicant was not present on the date of hearing and the revision was, therefore, rejected for default. The applicant then applied for the restoration of the case which was also rejected on the ground that there was no provision in the Rent Control and Eviction Act under which the Additional Commissioner had power to restore a revision dismissed for default. Representation was then made to the State Government but the Government rejected this representation. After obtaining the permission, the opposite party filed a suit for the ejectment of the applicant which is pending in the court of Munsif City, Kanpur. On these facts the present petition has been filed.
(3.) NOTICES were issued to the opposite parties and a counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the landlord Sri Krishna Lal who is arrayed as opposite party No. 4 to this petition. In the counter -affidavit it is asserted that in July, 1953, a suit had been filed for the ejectment of the applicant in the court of Munsif City, Kanpur which is still pending. It is admitted that an application was made to the District Magistrate by the apposite -party praying that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer refusing to grant permission be cancelled. It is further asserted that the applicant applied that the District Magistrate's order of 3rd May, 1953 was illegal and invalid. It is then asserted in the counter -affidavit that on the date when the revision was dismissed for default, the applicant was not ill and the revision was rightly dismissed by the Additional Commissioner because the applicant deliberately absented himself presumably on the ground that the deponent having already filed the suit on the basis of the permission granted to him, its subsequent cancellation by the Commissioner would be of no consequence. The main contention of the applicant is that under the provisions of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the District Magistrate had no power to pass an order cancelling the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer refusing permission to the landlord to file a suit against the applicant and lie had further no power under any of the provisions of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act to grant permission and the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 11th May, 1953 Was passed as a result of the order passed by the District Magistrate on the 3rd of May, 1953 which was without jurisdiction and should be quashed. Raliance has been placed on the case of Mahabir Prasad v. The District Magistrate of Kanpnr, 1955 A.W.R. (H.C.) 384. In that case a certain allotment order was cancelled by the District Magistrate and acting upon the order of the District Magistrate, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had passed a subsequent order and it was held by this Court that the Rent Control and Eviction officer cannot lawfully cancel his own order when that cancellation is not the result of the exercise of his own discretion but is brought about in pursuance of an order of a superior authority and such an order is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the opposite parties has strenuously urged that the facts of the case relied upon are distinguishable from the present case and in the present case, at any rate, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot quash the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer. The first ground urged by the opposite parties, in reply to the contention of the applicant, is that in the present case the only prayer which the applicant has made is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11th May, 1953 giving permission to the opposite party No. 4 to file a suit for ejectment against the applicant. An order granting or refusing permission under Section 3 is an administrative order and no writ of certiorari lies against an administrative order. The principle of law is well -settled both by the numerous cases of this Court as well as that of the Supreme Court that the two conditions are necessary for the grant of a writ of certiorari firstly there must be a tribunal acting judicially or in a quasi -judicial manner. The Tribunal has not only to act judicially but there must be a duty cast upon such tribunal to act judicially and only in such cases a tribunal can be regarded as judicial or quasi judicial tribunal. The second condition necessary for the grant of a writ of certiorari is that the tribunal must have acted without jurisdiction of must have committed an error of procedure of any other error apparent on the face of the record. The powers, however, under Article 226 of the Constitution are much wider and this Court, in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, can issue any directions or orders to the subordinate courts. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the primary relief sought is for the quashing of an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It cannot, therefore, be said that the present petition can be thrown out only on the ground that, while asking for a relief quashing the order, the Petitioner has further added that an order quashing the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer be issued by issuing a writ of certiorari. In my opinion, therefore, there is no force in this objection raised by the opposite -parties.;