( 1 ) I had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Beg, J. but regret that I am unable to agree with the conclusion at which he has arrived,

( 2 ) THE essential facts are not in dispute. The District Magistrate refused to grant permission to the appellants to file a suit for the ejectment or the respondents from the premises occupied by them as tenants of the appellants. This order was made under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the u. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U. P. Act No. XVII of 1954. The appellants then applied to the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of that section to revise the order. The Commissioner by an order dated the 28th December, 1953, allowed the application, set aside the order of the District" Magistrate and granted the requisite permission. The validity of the Commissioners order is questioned on the ground that as the commissioner did not find that the District Magistrate had acted illegally or with material irregularity he had no jurisdiction to set aside the latters order.

( 3 ) THE powers of the Commissioner in revision are to be found in Sub-section (3 ). This sub-section say