DWIVEDI, J. :- A Division Bench has referred a question for opinion to the Full Bench. After hearing counsel for the parties we have made some amendment in the form of the question. The question, as modified by us, is :

"While granting permission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is the District Magistrate bound to consider the need of the tenant for the accommodation?"

2. The decision in Parmeshwar Dayal v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, 1963 All LJ 296 : (AIR 1964 All 7) is by a Full Bench. The above question was also considered by the Full Bench. Sri Chief Justice Desai and Sri Justice S. D. Singh took the view that the District Magistrate is not bound to consider the need of the tenant. Sri Justice Oak did not agree with their view. The majority of the Full Bench answered the above question in the negative.

3. The Division Bench, while hearing the special appeal, felt that the question required reconsideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lala Sri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, AIR 1965 SC 1767. It has been urged before us that our Full Bench decision is impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court decision.

4. Four reasons are mentioned in the opinions of Sri Chief Justice Desai and Sri Justice S. D. Singh in support of their view. Those reasons are :

(1) There is no express or implied provision in the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) requiring the District Magistrate to consider the need of the tenant;

(2) The District Magistrate, while considering the landlord's application, acts in an administrative capacity and not as a quasi-judicial authority. He is not bound to hear the parties. He is also not bound to give reasons in support of his order;

(3) The landlord is the owner of the accommodation. Section 3 neither confers any right nor any immunity on the tenant; and

(4) The District Magistrate has got absolute discretion is the matter. He may or may not grant permission to the landlord.

5. All these reasons have lost their vitality on account of the Supreme Court judgment. In Sri Bhagwan's case, AIR 1965 SC 1767 the direct question for consideration was whether the State Government acts as a quasi-judicial authority while making an order under Section 7-F of the Act in a proceeding arising under Section 3(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. While discussing the question, the Supreme Court also examined the provisions of Section 3. As regards the nature of the District Magistrate's power under Section 3 the Supreme Court said at p. 1771 :

"Therefore, we are satisfied that the jurisdiction conferred on the District Magistrate to deal with the rights of the parties is of such character that principles of natural justice cannot be excluded from the proceedings before him."

At p. 1772 the Supreme Court said :

"In our opinion, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that these provisions unambiguously suggest that the proceedings before the District Magistrate .... and quasi-judicial in character."

6. The Supreme Court also held that Section 3 confers a right on the tenant. At p. 1771 the Supreme Court said :

"It is plain that the order which the District Magistrate passes under Section 3(2) affects the statutory rights of the tenants."

At p. 1772 the Supreme Court said :

"The right conferred on the tenants not to be evicted, except on the specified grounds enumerated by clauses (a) to (g) of Section 3(1), is a statutory right of great significance, and it is this statutory right of which the tenants would be deprived when the landlord obtains the sanction of the District Magistrate."

7. At p. 1771 the Supreme Court has indicated that the District Magistrate should indicate his reasons why he makes a particular order under Section 3(2). The Court has also indicated as to how the District Magistrate should deal with the case. The Court said :

"Thus, the provision for a revisional application to the Commission