Asthana, C. J. - (1.) THE principal contention raised on behalf of the appellant in the special appeal is that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the needs of the landlord and the tenant had not been compared in the orders passed by the State Government and the Additional Commissioner. It was contended that a perusal of the orders of these two authorities made it abundantly clear that they had considered the comparative needs of the landlord and the tenant. It was not necessary, it was urged, that the authorities should say in so many words that the need of the parties had been compared and that the need of the landlord was greater than that of the tenant. In order to appreciate the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be necessary to set out briefly the undisputed facts.
(2.) THE appellant Massey is the landlord of an accommodation. He was formerly the tenant in the ground floor. Subsequently, he purchased the entire house. THE respondent no. 1 is the tenant in the upper portion of the house. He is a tenant continuing from more than 17 or 18 years. After having purchased the house, the appellant moved an application seeking permission under the provisions of Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 before the District Magistrate. THE application was considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who dismissed it. THE revision against the above order by the landlord was allowed by the Additional Commissioner holding that the landlord had a bonafide and genuine need for additional accommodation. A representation to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act by the tenant was dismissed. THE view taken by the Additional Commissioner was affirmed. THEreupon, the tenant filed a writ petition in this court which was allowed by learned Single Judge. THE learned Single Judge has held that neither the Commissioner nor the State Government has considered and weighed the need of the tenant as against that of the landlord. Relying on the Full Bench decision in the case of Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwal, 1968 AWR 572, the court held that the view taken by the two authorities was manifestly erroneous in law. We have perused the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as the State Government. We must record a finding that we are unable to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the respective needs of the parties have not been considered by the Commissioner and the State Government. The order of the Commissioner shows that he has taken into consideration the accommodation in possession of the two parties and the number of persons in the family of each party. He has also considered the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation and has also considered the size of the rooms in possession of either party. The Commissioner has further taken into consideration that the landlord had purchased the house to meet the requirement for additional accommodation. All that the Full Bench in Asa Singh (Supra) decided was that the authorities concerned considered the needs of the two parties. In Asa Singh's case, the Full Bench referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, 1965 AWR 304 SC and then laid down the following law :- "It is clear from this passage that the District Magistrate, while considering the landlord's application, has to weigh the pros and cons of it, he has to hear the landlord as well as the tenant. It necessarily follows that he has to consider the application of the landlord as well as the version of the tenant. Naturally if the tenants case is that he needs the accommodation, the District Magistrate has to consider that case too. So the Act impliedly casts a duty on the District Magistrate to give consideration to the cases of both the landlord and the tenant." It would, therefore, be seen that the primary requirement under this rule of law is that the District Magistrate gives consideration to cases of both the landlord and the tenant. It is also clarified in the above rule that while considering the landlord's application he has to weigh the pros and cons of it. Similarly, he has to consider the tenant's need as well. It is, therefore, evident that the prime requirement under this rule of law is that the cases of both the parties be considered and weighed. In the present case, the Commissioner has considered the respective cases of the parties and ultimately he has found that the landlord requires the additional accommodation, and has given him the required permission. But, before doing so, he has taken into consideration the hardship of the tenant and has directed that the permission would only be effected after one year of the order. This order was passed on the 9th of August, 1971. It was urged that the Commissioner does not state that the need of the landlord was greater than that of the tenant. It is true that this expression does not find itself mentioned in so many words but a perusal of the order of the Additional Commissioner leaves us in no doubt that this is what weighed with the Commissioner. He has used the expression, "The need for additional accommodation appears to be obvious." We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that the Commissioner has not complied with the requirement of law laid down in the Full Bench case of Asa Singh (Supra).
(3.) COMING to the order of the State Government, it must at once be noticed that this is an order of affirmance and the State Government was only to pass a speaking order. It was not necessary for the State Government to have elaborataley dealt with every circumstance. The order of the State Government also shows that the matter had been considered. The order shows that the respective needs of the parties were considered. There was a comparison of the strength of the families, the size of the accommodation in their possession, the need for additional accommodation. Ultimately, the order contains an expression to the following effect :- "When the need of the landlord is proved or established, then the rights of the tenant have to be sacrificed." This shows that the State Government concluded that need of the landlord had been established. A perusal of this order also leaves us in no doubt that the order of the State Government is in substantial compliance with the requirement of law laid down in the case of Asa Singh.;