V.G. OAK, C.J. :- This Special Appeal arises out of proceedings under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The dispute relates to a certain shop at Kanpur. Rama Shankar Agarwal, respondent No. 3, is the proprietor of the shop. At one time one Arif Husain occupied the shop as Rama Shankar's tenant. In July 1967 he transferred his business and goodwill in favour of Masood Ahmad, who is the appellant in this Special Appeal. Arif Husain died on 10-7-1967. Upon Arif Husain's death, the shop was occupied by Masood Ahmad. He applied for allotment of the shop in his name. On 21-10-1967 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur allotted the shop to Masood Ahmad.

2. Rama Shankar Agarwal (landlord) went up in revision under S. 7-F of the Act. The revision was allowed by the State Government on 12.3.1968. The order of allotment in Masood Ahmad's favour was set aside; and the accommodation was released in favour of the landlord.

3. Masood Ahmad filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the State Government in revision on 12.3.1968. The writ petition has been dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court. Masood Ahmad has filed the present Special Appeal.

4. We have seen that Masood Ahmad had applied for allotment of the shop in his favour. The landlord also applied for release of the shop in his favour. That application bears the date 24.8.1967. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, took the view that that application for release was received long after the allotment order was passed in Masood Ahmad's name. The officer reported that the application for release was not received in his office till 13.12.1967. According to the landlord, the application for release was despatched on 24.8.1967. On the other hand, according to the appellant and respondent No. 2, the application for release was not received in the office of respondent No. 2 till 13.12. 1967. The question, therefore, arises, whether the application for release was despatched by the landlord in August 1967 as contended by him or in December, 1967 as urged by the appellant.

5. On the one hand, the application bears the date 24-8-1967. The landlord filed a counter-affidavit. In paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit it was stated that the deponent sent the application for release dated 24-8-1967 by post on that very date. If that allegation is correct, that application should have reached the office of respondent No. 2 sometime in August 1967. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 reported that that application was not received in his office till 13.12.1967. Whether the application for release was despatched in August or in December, is a question of fact. It is not convenient to resolve that conflict in the present summary proceeding.

6. Annexure F-I to the writ petition is a copy of the impugned order passed by the State Government. During the course of that order it was observed : -

"It appears that the petitioner's release application dated 24th August, 1967 was not considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as it should have been." That observation in Annexure F-1 suggests that it was possible for respondent No. 2 to consider the landlord's application for release in October 1967.

7. Even if it is assumed that the landlord's application for release was not received by respondent No. 2 till December 1967, that would not preclude the State Government from considering the landlord's request for release when the matter was taken up by the State Government on 12-3-1968. In "Smt. Ira Mittra v. A. K. Mandhyan", (1968 All LJ 434), it was held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had full jurisdiction to entertain and consider the landlord's application for release under Rule 6, even though that application was presented after proceedings had been started against her under Section 7-A of the Act.

8. In exercising its power of revision the State Government can exercise all the powers of the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Act