Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been moved by the Life Insurance Corporation of India for quashing an order of the State Government granting permission to the landlord to file a suit for eject ment of the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute. The permis sion was sought under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The District Magistrate refused the permission. On revision the Commissioner granted the permission. The State Government has dismissed the tenant's revision under Section 7-F of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order mainly on the ground that the considerations on which the permis sion had been granted are not relevant for granting the permission. The petitioner is a tenant of a portion of the building belonging to the landlord. The landlord filed an application on the ground that the accommodation was needed for the business which his son intend ed to start. The District Magistrate found that the accommodation already in possession of the landlord was sufficient even for accommodating the proposed new business of the son. L-" also found that the tenant had no alternative accommodation and would suffer injury if it will be evicted from the accommodation. One of the pleas taken before the District Magistrate was that during the pendency of the application a building in the same locality had been constructed by some person and that was available for being occupied by the Life Insurance Corporation. The Life Insurance Corporation had, however, approached the landlord of that building but as it was not found suitable and the rent demanded was very high it did not take that building on lease. On these facts the Dis trict Magistrate was of opinion that no alternative accommodation was available.
(2.) IN revision the Commissioner held that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was not suitable for the business his son intended to start and accordingly held that the need of the landlord was genuine. Coming to the need of the tenant the Commissioner observed that the Life Insurance Corporation had three other branches in the city and that it could accommodate this branch also in one of the buildings occupied by other branches; that the land lord had made a suggestion of an alternative accommodation but the tenant did not take it; and that it was possible for the L.I.C. to find another accommodation as it was in possession of enormous resources. On the basis of the facts mentioned above the Commissioner thought that the tenant will not suffer any undue hardship in vacating the accommodation. The State Government held that as the landlord's son wanted to start a business of selling antiquities to foreign tourist, the accom modation already available to the landlord was not suitable and the business would nourish better if it was to be lodged in the premises occupied by the Life Insurance Corporation. Coming to the needs of the tenant, the State Government has only taken into consideration the funds and resources available to the tenant. The only observa tion or finding in the order of the State Government regarding the need of the tenant is in the following words: - There is no finding by the State Government about the availability of any particular accommodation for the Life Insurance Corporation. There is also no finding that the need of the tenant is not genuine. The question that arises for consideration is whether the State Government can direct the ejectment of the tenant simply on the ground that it has funds and resources. Merely possession of re sources or funds cannot make available an accommodation. During the pendency of the writ petition a statement was made on behalf of the landlord that the Life Insurance Corporation has already pur chased a land and is making construction thereon. It is admitted by the Life Insurance Corporation that it has purchased some land and is planning to construct a building for the Divisional Office on that land but that may take five years and at present the Life Insurance Corpo ration has no accommodation available.
(3.) THE order of the State Government was passed in August 1972 when the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, had come into effect. Of course the case has to be decided not according to law laid down in this new Act but accord ing to law that existed under the old Act. However, as the permis sion granted under Section 3 of the old Act is now to be enforced through the procedure provided in Section 21 of the new Act ic would not be wrong to see the provisions of law in this Act as a guide for the exercise of discretion in matters where the landlord seeks to eject a tenant. Rule 16(2) (b) provides as under: - "Where the tenant has available with him suitable accommoda tion to which he can shift his business without substantial loss shall be greater justification for allowing the application." ;