( 1 ) THIS and the associated petitions for certiorari have been referred to a larger Bench by our brother Nigam on account of their raising the question whether Narottam Saran v. State of U. P. , air 1954 All 232 was correctly decided or not. The petitioners in ,all these petitions are tenants of accommodations governed by the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and owned by opposite party No. 3 of each petition. Under Section 3 (i) no suit, can without the permission of the District Magistrate, he filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation (except on one or more of certain grounds, none of which exists in these cases ). All the accommodations are situated in Lucknow city and the landlords applied to the District Magistrate, Luck-now for permission to eject the petitioners. The District Magistrate permitted the landlords in this petition and in petitions Nos. 304 and 306 and refused permission in petition No. 303. Section 3 (2), (3) and (4) lays down that when a District Magistrate grants or refuses to grant permission on a landlords application the party aggrieved may within a certain time apply to the Commissioner to revise the order, that the Commissioner "shall hear the application. . . . . . . . . within six weeks. . . . . . . . . and he may, if he is not satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the District Magistrate or as to the regularity of proceedings held before him, alter or reverse his order, or make such other order as may be just and proper" and that "this order would be final subject to any order passed by the State Government under Section 7-F. " the petitioners in this petition and petitions Nos. 304 and 306 and the landlord in petition No. 303 applied to the Commissioner to revise the District Magistrates orders under Section 3 (2) and the Commissioner cancelled the permission already granted by the District Magistrate or refused to revise the District Magistrates orders refusing permission. In other words, the landlords in. all the cases remained without permission. Section 7-F is to the effect that "the State Government may call for the record of any case granting or refusing to grant permission. . . . . . . . . . . . and make such order as appears to it necessary for the ends of justice". The landlords applied to the State Government to exercise this power. The applications are long applications containing detailed facts. They were entertained by the State Government and on behalf of it, the Area Rationing Officer issued notices to the petitioners, who were cited as opposite parties in the applications, calling upon them "to file their written statements to the enclosed petitions,. . . . . . . . . . . . within four days of the receipt of the letter for onward transmission to the Government. " the petitioners in all the cases filed written statements dealing with all the contentions put forth by the landlords in their applications to the State-Government. None of the petitioners in his written statement asked for an opportunity to be heard orally by the State Government before passing orders on the landlords application apparently each petitioner was satisfied with the opportunity given to him to file a written statement in reply to the landlords application. After considering the landlords applications and the petitioners written statements the State government in all the cases set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner and permitted the landlords to file suits for eviction of the petitioners. It was recited in the orders that the contention of the parties had been considered, that other matters were. taken into consideration, that justice demanded that the landlords be allowed to occupy the accommodations themselves and that consequently permission was granted to them under Section 3 of the Act to file ejectment suits, against the petitioners. These orders were passed in three cases on 2-4-1962