JUDGMENT

Gulati, J. - The petitioners are tenants of two adjoining shops. The petitioner No. 1, Hamid Hussain in a watch repairer and petitioner No. 2 Raj Kishore Baijal is a tailor. The shops were purchased by Azmat Ali in 1965. Azmat Ali himself lives in Malasiya while his family lives at Jaunpur with his brother Ahmad Ali, who holds a general power of attorney from his brother. Ahmed Ali is running a workshop for repairs and service of motor cycles and scooters and sale of parts and accessories thereof, in a shop belonging to one Hari Shanker. He is a licensee and not a regular tenant. He moved an application under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act on behalf of his brother Azmat Ali for permission to file a suit against the petitioners on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was required for Ahmad All where he wanted to shift his workshop. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application on the ground that the application under Section 3 should have been moved by the landlord himself and not by his brother and that the accommodation in possession of Ahmad Ali is adequate for his needs. He also held that the petitioners had no alternative accommodation and it would be unfair to shift them to some other locality because they had earned some goodwill. The Commissioner did not agree with these findings. He held that the fact that the landlord himself did not sign the application under Section 3 was not fatal and in any case his brother was competent to file such an application as he held a power of attorney in his favour. He also held that while the landlord was living in Malasiya his family consisting of 7 members was residing at Jaunpur and the two brothers were joint. The accommodation in which Ahmad Ali was carrying on the shop was too small and the accommodation in dispute was more adequate. He also found that the petitioners were engaged in petty work of tailoring and watch repairing which they could easily carry on at any other place and according to him the need of the landlord was genuine and greater than that of the tenant. He, therefore, granted the permission to the landlord to file the suit. Against this order the petitioners went up in revision before the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. The State Government has endorsed the finding of the Commissioner and has held that on a comparison of the needs of the landlord and the tenant the need of the former appears to be genuine and greater. In the opinion of the State Government the petitioners would have no difficulty in finding alternative accommodation for petty work that they were doing. The petitioners are aggrieved and have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. In proceedings under Section 3 of the Act two things are essential. First of all it has to be found that the need of the landlord is genuine and bona fide and secondly if the need is found to be genuine and bona fide the authorities will have to compare the relative hardships in case the application is allowed. The Commissioner as also the State Government have recorded a finding on the material on record that the need of the landlord is genuine and on comparison they have also found his need to be greater than that of the tenant. It has also been found that the tenants would have no difficulty in finding alternative accommodation. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the orders of the Commissioner and the State Government suffer from any legal infirmity.

3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Section 3 of the Act was not maintainable inasmuch as it had not been signed by the landlord himself but had been signed by his brother and the power of attorney in the latter's favour did not authorise him to make such an application. It is not possible to accept this contention. A reading of the power of attorney as a whole leaves no room for doubt that the