JUDGMENT

Jagdish Sahai, J. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of our brother Dhawan dated 22nd of September, 1959. The facts giving rise to this case are very short. The respondent No. 1 Sri Ram Kumar is the tenant and the appellant Sri Ram Gopal the landlord of a premises situated in the city of Etawah. Sri Ram Gopal applied under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to sue the respondent No. 1 for ejectment on the ground that the premises was needed for his own use. The R.C.E.O., who was exercising the powers of the District Magistrate, rejected the application whereupon the dissatisfied landlord went to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division. The Commissioner allowed the Revision and remanded the case for rehearing by the R.C.E.O. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after rehearing the case, granted Sri Ram Gopal permission to sue Sri Ram Kumar for ejectment from the premises in dispute. Sri Ram Kumar preferred a Revision to the Commissioner. Allahabad Division, which was allowed and the order granting permission was set aside. Thereafter Sri Ram Gopal filed a revision application before the U.P. Government (hereinafter called the State Government). On 20-9-1958 the State Government, quashing the order passed by the Commissioner, allowed the application of Sri Ram Gopal for permission to sue Sri Ram Kumar for his ejectment from the premises in dispute. A writ petition was filed against this order of the State Government which was heard by our brother Dhavan who by his judgment dated 22nd of September, 1959, as already mentioned above allowed the same and quashed the order passed by the Stale Government. The present appeal is directed against that order of our brother Dhawan.

2. The question that has been canvassed before us and requires consideration in the present case is a very short one, the same being as to whether the order passed by the State Government was one contrary to law or was based upon considerations extraneous to the merits of the case. The submission of the respondent No. 1 before the learned Single Judge was that the State Government only considered the need of the landlord and not that of the tenant. This submission was based upon the following words in the order of the State Government:

"Prarthi ko niji avashyakta ke adhar par prashnagat dukan se vipakshi ko bedakhal karne ke hetu diwani adalat men mukadma dayar karne ki anumati de di jae".

Relying upon the above passage in the order of the State Government the learned Single Judge held that the order passed by the State Government was bad as the respective needs of the landlord and the tenant had not been considered. The sentence in the order of the State Government read as a whole is as follows :

"Rajyapal Mahoday is mamle men nyay ki drishti se yeh uchit samjhte hain ke prarthi ko niji avashyakta ke adhar par prashnagat dukan se vipakshi ko bedakhal karne ke hetu diwani adalat men mukadma dayar karne ki anumati de di jae."

Translated into English the sentence would read as follows: -

"The Governor considers it from the point of view of justice that in view of the need of the landlord he may be given permission to file a suit in the Civil Court for the ejectment of the opposite party."

There are two questions before us. The first is one of fact and that is, as to what is the exact meaning of the words quoted above. Do those words show that the State Government addressed themselves only to the consideration of the needs of the landlord or they carefully looked into the whole matter and then came to the conclusion that the interests of justice demanded that permission should be given to the landlord in view of his needs. It is not a matter of dispute that when the State Government decided the revision application filed by the appellant they had before them not only the orders passed by the R.C.E.O. and the Commissioner but the entire record of the