ORDER :- The petitioner is a tenant of two Shops in premises No. 4/143, New Hardeoganj, Belanganj, Agra. They were allotted to him under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act). The landlord moved an application under Section 3 of the Act seeking permission to file a suit for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of personal need. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 25-1-1971 granted necessary permission after considering the comparative needs of the tenant and the landlord. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to avail of the offer made by the landlord and surrender one of the two shops in his occupation within fifteen days of the making of the order. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, under S. 3(2) of the Act, The Commissioner dismissed the revision but allowed one month's time to the petitioner from the date of his order to avail of the offer made to him by the landlord and surrender one of the shops in favour of the landlord. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 7-F of the Act before the State Government and reiterated the various pleas Tailed by him before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner. The State Government, by its order dated 25-10-1972, rejected the petition. The landlord thereafter moved an application under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for the ejectment of the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute. The Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the petitioner dated 13-11-1972 to show cause why he should not be evicted. Thereupon the petitioner filed the above noted petition for quashing the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the Commissioner, and the State Government dated 25-1-1971, 9-8-1971 and 25-10-1972 respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities concerned failed to apply their minds in considering the comparative need of the petitioner and that of the landlord and that the order of the State Government did not contain any reasons for rejecting the petition under S. 7-F of the Act. I have carefully looked into the orders passed by the various authorities referred to earlier and I find no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner. All the authorities appear to have carefully weighed the comparative needs of the tenant and the landlord and on being satisfied that the need of the landlord was bona fide and more pressing, permission was accorded for filing a suit for the eviction of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the order of the State Govt. does not disclose any reason and independent application of mind for the rejection of the petition under Section 7-F of the Act is without any substance. It has referred to the various pleas raised by the parties and then arrived at the conclusion that no interference against the order of the subordinate authorities was called for. As the State Government affirmed the orders passed by the subordinate authorities, it was not necessary to discuss the entire evidence in detail. The order does indicate that the State Government applied its mind to the comparative needs of the parties.

3. It was next contended that the permission should not have been granted for the ejectment of the petitioner from both the shops as the offer made by the landlord indicated that his need would be satisfied by one of the shops in dispute. This argument too has no merits. It was only by way of concession and to avoid prolonged litigation that the offer was made by the landlord. The petitioner did not accept that offer. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner offered him fresh opportunities to avail of the offer made by the landlord but the petitioner instead of accepting the offer went up to the State Government and challenged the correctness of