- (1.) Respondent No. 1,Mooraj Mal, is the landlord of an accommodation, situate in the city of Bareilly, of which the appellants are the tenants. Respondent No. 1 made an application for permission to file a suit for evicting the appellants under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The application was contested by the appellant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated May 21, 1970, granted the permission prayed for. On a revision the Commissioner however, set aside that order. He came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord did not appear either to be adequate or pressing. The matter was then taken up to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. The State Government set aside the order of the Commissioner and granted the permission. Aggrieved by that order the tenants filed a writ petition in this Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on July 15, 1975. They have now preferred the present Special Appeal against the said judgment.
(2.) It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that even though the State Government had considered the need of the landlord, it did not consider the need of the appellant, at all, much less to say of comparing it with that of the landlord. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants neither the order of the Commissioner could be set aside by the State Government, nor the permission could be granted to respondent No. 1, unless the State Government considered the needs of both the parties, compared their respective needs and came to the conclusion that the landlord would put to greater hardship, in the case the permission was refused than the hardship of the tenants, in case the permission was granted.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we are of opinion that the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellants is well founded. We have gone through the order of the State Government. It has all along considered the need of the landlord and thereafter it came to the conclusion that his need was genuine. Except for saying towards the end of the order that in case where the need of the landlord and the tenant was equibalanced preference has to given to the landlord, the State Government has not even mentioned what was the case set up by the appellants and to what hardship will they be put, if the permission was granted. This, in our opinion, does not amount to either consideration of the need of the tenants or its comparison with that of the landlord. Even if it may be accepted that the State Government has recorded a finding that the need of the parties was equibalanced, we are of opinion that the permission could not be granted merely on the ground that the landlord had to be given a preference. The State Government ought to have come to the conclusion, before granting permission, that the landlord would be put to greater hardship, in case the permission was refused. The order of the State Government cannot, therefore, be sustained.;