B. Mukherji, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a Writ of certiorari to quash an order dated the 5th of January 1957 made by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur in a revision filed by the petitioner. There is also a prayer for the quashing of an order made by the second respondent, namely the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur: the prayer states that the order was made on the 3rd October 1955 while Annexure B which is said to be a true copy of that order shows that the order was made on the 30th November 1956. Learned counsel has been unable to tell me which of the two dates is correct. In any event the prayer made related to the quashing of the order made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in respect of premises in regard to which dispute arose between the landlord petitioner and respondent no. 3, his tenant. It is necessary to state few facts in order to know precisely the points raised by this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner owned a house bearing no. 85|48 at Cooperganj, Kanpur. A portion of this house was in the occupation of the third respondent as a tenant. The house was in a state of bad repair and a portion of the house needed rebuilding and the other portion needed reconditioning. The third respondent was alleged to have been a bad tenant in so far as he had been falling into arrears of rent. There was a suit for ejectment against him in 1952 and that suit was compromised sometime in December 1954. Thereafter, the landlord wanted to rebuild the entire house and bring it under his own occupation. He therefore made an application under Sec. 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act to the District Magistrate for permission to file a suit against the third respondent. The landlord relied for permission on two grounds: first that he needed the premises for his business, and secondly that the premises needed rebuilding. Objection was made on behalf of the third respondent and his objection prevailed because the Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion on the materials before him and on a local inspection of the property that he made, that the application of the petitioner for permission to sue the third respondent was not a bona fide application; that the petitioner's need about which he represented was not genuine, and further that the en-tire house did not require rebuilding. The petitioner's application under Sec. 3 (ii) therefore dismissed.
(3.) The petitioner then preferred a revision under Sec. 3 (ii) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act before the Commissioner. This revision was filed by the petitioner beyond thirty .days from the date on which the order was communicated to him. The Commissioner rejected the revision on the ground that the revision was beyond time by twelve days. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended before the Commissioner that in computing the period of limitation, that is to say, the period of thirty days, the period required for obtaining copy of the order under revision had to be excluded. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that such exclusion could not be permitted.;