JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the order passed by the Commissioner Allahabad Division, dismissing the petitioner's revision for default of appearance be quashed and the Commissioner be directed to hear the revision on merits.

2. The petitioner is a tenant of portion of premises No. 7/152, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur since November, 1947. Dr. Kalindi Mitter, respondent No. 3, is the landlady. The landlady applied for permission under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act for filing a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The Additional District Magistrate on 9th December 1968 granted the requisite permission on the finding that the need of the landlady was more genuine and pressing than that of the tenant. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 3(2) of the Act before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division on 13th December, 1968. The revision was fixed up for hearing at Allahabad on 25th February, 1969. The petitioner states that she had engaged these counsel at Allahabad for conducting her revision. The petitioner's counsel was informed that as the Commissioner was on tour the revision will not be taken up on 25th February, 1969. It appears that 19th March, 1969, was fixed for the hearing of the revision at Kanpur. Notice of this date was sent to the counsel for the petitioner. The three counsel expressed their inability to attend the case at Kanpur because they had not been paid or instructed to do so. They had been instructed to appear at Allahabad only. On 14th March, 1969, an application purporting to have been signed by some one as the counsel for the petitioner was moved before the Commissioner praying for adjournment of the case of three months and further praying that the hearing of the case be fixed at Allahabad. It was stated that the petitioner had been operated upon for cancer of the uterus and that she was unable to look after her case for the next three months. It was further stated that since the case was being looked after by counsel who live at Allahabad it would not be possible for them to go to Kanpur. No orders appear to have been passed on this application till 19th March, 1969, which was the date fixed for hearing of the revision at Kanpur.

3. On 19th March, 1969, the Commissioner took up the case at Kanpur. He found that no one was present on behalf of the petitioner. He appears to have refused the prayer for adjournment and the same day passed an order dismissing the revision in default. He desired that the case was very old and was pending since 1966. Nobody was present on behalf of the tenant.

4. Mr. Kacker, appearing for the petitioner, urged that the Commissioner was a statutory tribunal. He could exercise only such powers as were conferred by the statute. The Control of Rent and Eviction Act did not grant the revising authority any power to dismiss a revision for default of appearance. The Commissioner was obliged to pass an order on the merits of the case.

5. It is true that a statutory tribunal functions within the four corners of the statute. It has only such powers as are expressly or by necessary implication conferred on it by the provisions of the law. Otherwise it has no inherent powers. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, provides that the party aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate granting or refusing to grant the permission may within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order to him apply to the Commissioner to revise the order. Sub-section (3) then states :-

"The Commissioner shall hear the application made under sub-section (2), as far as may be, within six weeks from the date of making it, and he may, if he is not satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the District Magistrate or as to the regularity of proceedings held before him, alter or revers