S.N. Dwivedi, J. - (1.) 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 UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is the DM bound to consider the need of the tenant for the accommodation?
(2.) THE decision in Parmeshwar Dayal v. Additional Commissioner, 1963 AWR 220 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 DM 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 : 1965 AWR 304 : 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 UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) requiring the DM to consider the need of the tenant; (2) The DM, while considering the landlord's 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 DM has got absolute discretion in the matter. He may or may not grant permission to the landlord. All these reasons have lost their vitality on account of the Supreme Court judgment. In Sri Bhagwan's (supra) case the direct question for consideration was whether the State Government acts as a quasi -judicial authority while making an order Under Section 7 -F of the Act in a proceeding arising Under Section 3(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. While discussing the question, the Supreme Court also examined the provisions of Section 3. As regards the nature of the DM's power Under Section 3 the Supreme Court said at page 1771: Therefore, we are satisfied that the jurisdiction conferred on the DM to deal with the rights of the parties is of such character that principles of natural justice cannot be excluded from the proceedings before him. At page 1772 the Supreme Court said: In our opinion, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that these provisions unambiguously suggest that the proceedings before the DM....are quasi -judicial in character. The Supreme Court also held that Section 3 confers a right on (the tenant. At page 1771 the Supreme Court said: It is plain that the order which the DM passes Under Section 3(2) affects the statutory rights of the tenants. At page 1772 the Supreme Court said: The right conferred ion the tenants not to be evicted, exception the specified grounds enumerated by Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 3(1), is a statutory right of great significance and it is this statutory right of which the tenants would be deprived when the landlord obtains the sanction of the DM. At page 1771 the Supreme Court has indicated that the DM should indicate his reasons why he makes a particular order (?) (under) Section 3(2). The Court has also indicated as to how the DM should deal -with the case. The Court said: Thus, the provision for a revisional application to the Commissioner also indicates that the DM has to weigh the pros and cons of the master and come to a certain conclusion before he makes the order. The rule naturally imports the requirement that the parties should be allowed to put their aversions before him. The DM cannot reasonably weigh the pros and cons unless both the landlord and the tenant are given an opportunity to place their versions before him. (Emphasis ours).;