JAGDISH SAHAI, J. :- The question referred to us reads :

"Whether the State Government is in law liable to state the reasons for an order refusing to interfere under Section 7-F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act with an order of the Commissioner passed under Section 3(3) of the Act?"

2. The relevant and necessary facts of the case are :-

The petitioners, Haji Manzoor Ahmad and Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, are the landlords of premises No. CK 66/3 situate in Mohalla Benia Bagh. In the city of Varanasi. The respondents Nos. 4 to 7, that is, Sarvasri Sher Andil Khan, Moghal Khan, Abdullah Khan and Mannan Khan, are the tenants in possession of the premises aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the premises). The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi.

3. The petitioners made an application under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to eject the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 from the premises. The respondents Nos. 4 to 7 filed an objection and on 10-7-1964 the Area Rationing Officer, Rent Control, Varanasi, dismissed the petitioners' application. The petitioners filed a revision application before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, who by his order dated 31-7-1964 remanded the case back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi. After remand the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 21-5-1966 granted permission to the petitioners to file a suit for the ejectment of the respondents from the ground floor only, but rejected the application with regard to the upper storey.The petitioners filed a revision application against the aforesaid order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division and so did the respondents Nos. 4 to 7.

The learned Commissioner heard both the revision applications together and by an order dated 18-7-1966 dismissed the petitioners' revision application and allowed that of the respondents Nos. 4 to 7, thus revoking the permission granted by the Bent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioners then filed a revision application under Section 7-F of the Act before the State Government. That revision application was rejected by the State Government, according to the petitioners, on 3-10-1966. The petitioners have filed Annexure 'G' to, the Writ Petition treating it as an order passed by the State Government rejecting their revision application. It reads :-

4. The petitioners have approached tills Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have prayed that the order of the State Government be quashed. The main ground that was urged before the learned single Judge at the time of the hearing of the instant writ petition was that the State Government was bound to pass reasoned order and inasmuch as annexure 'G' to the writ petition does not contain the reasons, the order of the State Government is liable to be quashed.

5. The only question which we are called upon to consider is whether the State Government while exercising its power under Section 7-F of the Act is required to pass a speaking and reasoned order.

6. Section 8 of the Act is headed as restrictions on eviction and provides that no suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds contained in clauses (a) to (g) of that section. From that it follows that if the cause of action for the suit is founded on any of the grounds contained in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 3 of the Act, no permission of the District Magistrate is necessary and the landlord can go to a Civil Court without the permission of the District Magistrate, but if the proposed civil suit is based on any other ground, the landlord must first obtain the permission of the District Magistrate. The order