DWIVEDI,J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT A Division Bench has referred a question for opinion to the Full Bench. After hearing counsel for the parties we have made some amendment in the form of the question. The question, as modified by us, is : "While granting permission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is the District Magistrate bound to consider the need of the tenant for the accommodation?"
(2.) THE decision in Parmeshwar Dayal v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, 1963 All LJ 296 : (AIR 1964 All 7) is by a Full Bench. The above question was also considered by the Full Bench. Sri Chief Justice Desai and Sri Justice S. D. Singh took the view that the District Magistrate is not bound to consider the need of the tenant. Sri Justice Oak did not agree with their view. The majority of the Full Bench answered the above question in the negative. The Division Bench, while hearing the special appeal, felt that the question required reconsideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lala Sri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, AIR 1965 SC 1767. It has been urged before us that our Full Bench decision is impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court decision.
(3.) FOUR reasons are mentioned in the opinions of Sri Chief Justice Desai and Sri Justice S. D. Singh in support of their view. Those reasons are : (1) There is no express or implied provision in the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) requiring the District Magistrate to consider the need of the tenant; (2) The District Magistrate, while considering the landlords application, acts in an administrative capacity and not as a quasi-judicial authority. He is not bound to hear the parties. He is also not bound to give reasons in support of his order; (3) The landlord is the owner of the accommodation. Section 3 neither confers any right nor any immunity on the tenant; and (4) The District Magistrate has got absolute discretion is the matter. He may or may not grant permission to the landlord. ;