DESAI, C. J.

( 1 ) MATHUR, J. , has referred to a larger bench the question, "is the order of the District Magistrate and also of the Commissioner and the State Government invalid simply because they did not take into consideration the needs of the tenant?" and this bench has been constituted to answer it. My answer to the question is emphatic no.

( 2 ) THERE was slight controversy on the question whether the Commissioner considered the needs of the petitioner tenant, but we are not concerned with that controversy because the whole petition has not been referred to this bench. It will be for Mathur, J. , to decide whether the petitioners needs were considered by the Commis--sioner or not we have to answer simply the question whether he was required to consider them.

( 3 ) THE question is with reference to the jurisdictions to be exercised by the District Magistrate, the Commissioner and the State Government under section 3 (1), 3 (3) and 7-F respectively of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The petitioner is a tenant since 1942 of a house which has now been purchased by opposite party No. 5 (to be referred to as "the opposite party", or "the landlord" )