JUDGMENT

V. Bhargava, C.J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated the 18th August, 1961 and an order passed by the Additional Commissioner in revision dated the 27th January, 1962 by which the Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners and upheld the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated the 18th August, 1961. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated the 18th August, 1961 was passed on an application made by the petitioners for permission to institute a suit for ejectment of opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The permission was sought on the ground that the petitioners needed the accommodation which was let out to opposite parties 4 and 5 for their own personal use.

2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer made enquiries and came to the finding that the petitioners were living in such conditions that they genuinely needed residential accommodation for their own occupation and that, therefore, it would be fair that the petitioners should be allowed to occupy the residential portion of this accommodation. The petitioners also wanted permission to eject the tenants from the shops which also form part of the accommodation. With regard to this part of the claim the finding recorded was that there was no genuine need of the petitioners for shop accommodation whereas the shop accommodation was definitely needed by the opposite party No. 4 who had a well-established whole-sale business in those shops. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer further held that if the opposite parties were ejected from the shops, their business would very considerably suffer. In these circumstances, a compromise was suggested before him under which the opposite parties agreed to give up the residential accommodation subject to two conditions viz. that the rent payable by them should be proportionately reduced and that they should be reimbursed for the expenditure that they had incurred on improvements and additions to the accommodation with the permission of the original landlord from whom they had taken the premises on tenancy. The petitioners refused to agree to this compromise. Thereupon, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer disallowed the application for permission to sue for ejectment of the opposite parties but added that the petitioners will have the option to have the accommodation which the opposite parties had agreed to spare in the house in dispute and that in case the opposite parties went back on the compromise made the petitioners could apply afresh for permission. This was the very order that was upheld in revision by the Additional Commissioner.

3. In the course of submissions before us in this petition, it was not suggested that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Additional Commissioner committed any error of jurisdiction in coming to their decisions. Consequently, we have to see whether there is any manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record in their orders. Under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the District Magistrate or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer exercising the powers of the District Magistrate has been given the power to grants permission to institute a suit for ejectment but no specific principles have been laid down indicating when permission should be granted and when it should be refused. Generally, permission has been granted where it has been found that the landlord needs the accommodation for his own use and there would be no serious prejudice to the tenant if such permission is granted. There are, however, no fixed principles of law governing the exercise of the discretion by the District Magistrate or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in granting or refusing permission and, consequently, if on taking various factors into consideratio