- (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the State Government dated 28th January, 1976 setting aside the order of the Commissioner granting permission to the petitioner for filing suit for eviction of the respondent tenant under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.
(2.) The shop in dispute has been in the tenancy of the respondent-tenant for the last 45 years wherein he has been carrying business of 'parchoon' and tea. The petitioner made an application under Section 3 of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for grant of permission to file a suit against the respondent-tenant. The application was contested by the tenant on the ground that the petitioner was not owner and landlord of the shop and that his need was not bonafide and genuine. In the alternative, he further pleaded that his need was more pressing than that of the landlord. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer refused to grant permission and dismissed the landlord's application. On revision by the landlord, the Commissioner granted permission to the landlord. The tenant thereupon made representation to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. The State Government by its order dated 17.11.1972 affirmed the order of the Commissioner. The respondent-tenant thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the State Government on 5.12.1974, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the State Government and directed the State Government to restore the tenant's revision-application to its original number and to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, the State Government heard both the parties and by its order dated 14.1.1976 allowed the tenant's revision application setting aside the order of the Commissioner and dismissed the landlord's application. Aggrieved, the petitioner-landlord has filed the present petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Government.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that after the remand, the State Government had no jurisdiction to re-consider the bonafide need of the petitioner as this Court has merely directed the State Government to consider the question as to whether any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. We find no merit in this contention. On a careful scrutiny of the judgment of this Court (Annexure '7' to the writ petition), we find that the learned Judge while remanding the matter to the State Government directed it to decide the tenant's revision-application in accordance with law. The judgment of the learned Single Judge does not contain any direction that only the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties should be decided. Once the order of the State Government was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the State Government for deciding the revision application, the entire matter was open before the State Government. In our opinion, the State Government did not exceed its jurisdiction in deciding the matter afresh on merits.;