C.S.P. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner is a tenant of premises situate in Azad Nagar. Kanpur City. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords. An application under Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made by the respondents seeking permission for filing a suit for ejecting the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the permission. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad. The Commissioner found that the landlord had sufficient accommodation and accommodation in the disputed quarter was almost similar, and that the family of the petitioner consisted of seven units while that of the landlord consisted of nine units. He held, that the need of the landlord for additional accommodation was not of a pressing nature, and if permission for eviction was granted from the accommodation in which the tenant had been living for the last twenty-four years, it would be difficult for him to get an alternative accommodation in Kanpur, where the housing problem was very acute.
2. The landlords thereafter filed a revision under Section 7(f) of the Act. They stated in paragraph 5 of the memo of revision under Section 7(f) of the Act that the tenant was retiring in 1970 and has his own house at Shahjahanpur and as such can easily live at Shahjahanpur and does not require the revision on the reasoning that it was not convenient for the family of the landlord to live in the accommodation available with them, and therefore, the need for additional accommodation was genuine. Considering the need of the petitioner. It took the view that inasmuch as the petitioner was an employee in the Government Agricultural College, Kanpur where he could get accommodation it would not be reasonable to permit the petitioner to continue residing in the disputed accommodation. It also found fault with the petitioner for not having applied for allotment of Government premises although as late as 1-9-1967, applications had been called for. In view of these finding, the revision was allowed, and permission was granted to file a suit.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the State Government completely misdirected itself in assuming that the petitioner was a Government servant and could get alternative accommodation, inasmuch as it was clearly stated in paragraph 6 of his objection under Section 7(f), that he had already retired from Government service and as such the finding of the State Government is vitiated. It has also been urged that the needs of the petitioner have not been properly considered and compared as required under Section 7(f) of the Act.
4. From a perusal of the order of the State Government, it is clear that one of the grounds which weighed with the State Government was that the petitioner was a Government servant employed in the Agricultural College, Kanpur, and that it was possible for him to get a house at that place. This assumption was completely erroneous. As has been seen, the petitioner in his objection had clearly stated that he had already retired from Government service. The respondents in their revision petition which is Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit had themselves stated in paragraph 5 of that petition that the petitioner was retiring in January 1970. That being so, there was no material on the basis of which the State Government could assume that it would be possible for the tenant to be accommodated in the Agricultural College, Kanpur. This assumption clearly vitiates the finding of the State Government It also appears that the State Government did not compare the needs of the landlord and the tenant. All that it did was to hold that it was possible for the petitioner to get Government premises and to find fault with the petitioner for not having made an application for allotment of such premises. It omitted to consider the existing needs of the tenant. This the State Government was bound to do while deciding the revision. In Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwal. 1968 All LJ 713 = (AIR 1969 All 474) a Full Bench of this Court has held that the District Magistrate is bound to compare the needs of the landlord and tenant while deciding the application under Section 3 of the Act. In the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1188 of 1971 decided by me today. I have held that the principles laid down in that case are applicable at the stage of revision proceedings under Section 7(f) of the Act. Counsel for the respondents has, however, urged that it was not necessary for the State Government to compare the needs of the landlord and the tenant while exercising its powers under Section 7(f) of the Act This contention does not survive in view of what has been, held in C. M. P. 1188 of 1971.
5. In the alternative. It has been urged that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has compared the needs of the landlord and the tenant and the order of the State Government which upholds the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, should as such be read as having adopted the reasoning given by that officer. Reference has been made in this connection to a decision of the Supreme Court in Purshottam Das v. Smt. Raj Mani Devi. AIR 1970 SC 763. This case does not support the contention of the counsel for the respondents, for it is nowhere laid down that the mere fact that the State Government sets aside the order of the Commissioner and restores that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the reasoning given by that officer revives, and should be deemed adopted by the State Government. Before this contention can be accepted, it must be shown that the reasoning given by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer have been adopted by the State Government. In the present case, the State Government has given Its own reasons for granting permission to the landlord, and there is no indication that it was accepting the reasoning given by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for granting permission.
6. Lastly, it has been argued that the needs of the tenant have been considered by the State Government inasmuch as a period of six months has been given to the tenant to obtain an alternative accommodation. This contention too is without substance. The mere fact that the tenant has been granted time of six months, cannot lead to the conclusion that the needs of the tenant have been considered or compared with those of the landlord. As has been seen the order of the State Government does not disclose even an attempt on the part of the State Government to consider and compare the need of the tenant with that of the landlord.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the State Government dated 22nd July 1970 (Annexure 'D') to the petition is quashed. Parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs.