Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution on behalf of tenant of premises No. 43/177, Chowk Kanpur. The opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 who are the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute filed an application on 27 -7 -1955 Under Sec. 3 of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act against the present applicants before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for permission to to file a suit for ejectment of the Petitioners on the ground that the shop was needed for the personal use of the landlords. It. was urged that Sri Munna Lal, one of the owners, was in the service of firm Messrs. Ragunath Prasad and Sons, Chowk Kanpur, and his services had been terminated on 30 -6 -1955, and he had been thrown out of employment, and wanted the shop for carrying on his own business of repairing fountain -pens. An objection was filed by the present Petitioners and they contended that they have been in the occupation of the shop for more than 17 years. It was also disputed that Messrs Raghunath Prasad and Sons had employed Munna Lal in service. The proprietor of that firm was the uncle of Munna Lal. Munna Lal was living jointly with Hari Har Prasad Goel in the upper storey of the shop of Messrs Raghunath Prasad and Sons and he was doing fountain -pen business in a small cabin attached to that shop. There were several other grounds on which the application was opposed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer got an enquiry made through the inspector. After his report and on consideration of all the circumstances the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application for permission on 31 -1 -1956. No revision was filed against that order before the Commr. and the order became final. On 13 -2 -1955, however, opposite party No. 4 Smt. Ram Katori Goel made an application to the Distt. Magistrate, Kanpur, pointing out that the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was wrong and that Sri Munna Lal who was employed by Hari Har Prasad Goel had been removed from service and is no longer doing any work there and that he had no place where he could carry on his business. On this the Distt. Magistrate directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to reopen the case and to rehear it on merits. Thereafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer again heard the whole matter and on 1 -10 -1956 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the necessary permission to the opposite parties to file a suit. A revision was filed against the order granting permission to the Commr. who rejected it on 12 -1 -1957. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the Kent Control and Eviction Officer dated 1 -10 -1956 and the order of the Commr. dated 12 -1 -1957 confirming the aforesaid order in revision.
(2.) The Petitioner has urged a number of points in support of the petition. Firstly, it is argued by him that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31 -1 -1956 refusing permission became final and it was not open to the Distt. Magistrate who had a concurrent jurisdiction with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to set aside that order and direct re -hearing of the Petitioner for permission. Secondly, it was contended that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 1 -10 -1956 granting permission was no order inasmuch as he passed the order on the direction of the Distt. Magistrate and did not apply his own independent mind. Thirdly, it was contended that the Rent Control and Eviction
(3.) Officer had held in the first enquiry that the evidence had been manufactured by the other side to establish the fact that the services of Munna Lal had been terminated, and having recorded that finding it was not open to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to come to a contrary conclusion that his services had in fact been terminated on looking into the Salary Register of the firm Raghunath Prasad and Sons. In this connection it was also argued that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer having once rejected the application of the opposite parties on the ground that the need of the landlords is not genuine and also on the ground that the need of the tenants was genuine and they would be put to great hardship if they were ejected it was not open to him to set aside that order merely on the finding that the need of the landlords is bonafide.;