Satish Chandra, J.
1. These two appeals have been preferred by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad. They are directed against a judgment quashing an order rejecting an application for release made by the landlord, an order of allotment of the accommodation in favour of Mr. U. C. Misra,, respondent, and also quashing proceedings under Section 7-A of the Rent Control Act, for the eviction of the landlord. The two Laloraya brothers, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were the landlords of bungalow No. 2/8 Bund Road, Allahabad. In June, 1961 a portion of this house fell vacant. One of the brothers made an application for its release. The application was allowed and the first respondent started living in the released portion. Mr. K. P. Srivastava was the tenant in another portion of the house. He was under orders of transfer by the end of May, 1962. On May 29, 1962 the two landlords made an application for release of that portion as well for their personal occupation. It was stated that the first petitioner had in the meantime got married and it was difficult for the two families to live in this small portion. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected this application for release on June 8, 1962 on the ground that the need of the landlords was not genuine. Thereafter, this portion was allotted to Mr. U. C. Misra on June 13, 1962. After the departure of the previous tenant, proceedings under Section 7-A were commenced and decreed.
2. The landlords instituted a writ petition in this Court. They challenged the validity of the order rejecting the application for release. The learned single Judge referred to several decisions including the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Surat Singh v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 1964 All LJ 412 = (AIR 1965 All 49) and held that in law the word 'need' implies a necessity, but the degree of necessity is not material, except in so far as it may throw light that the landlord's application is made in good faith. It is not for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to measure the extent of the landlord's need. All he has to do is to determine that the application is made in good faith.
3. Applying this principle of law the learned single Judge held that in the present case there was no finding that the application for release was made mala fide and not in good faith. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his order conceded that the landlord's family was large one but he was of the opinion that the accommodation in their possession was sufficient for their needs. This was not a correct approach, according to the law laid down by the Full Bench. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to enter into the sufficiency of the needs of the landlord. In this view the learned single Judge held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the application for release on an irrelevant ground. As a consequence, the order rejecting the application for release as well as the subsequent order of allotment and the order passed in proceedings under Section 7-A were all quashed.
4. Shri U. C. Misra in whose favour the accommodation had been allotted and for the benefit of whom proceedings under Section 7-A had been initiated, has not felt dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned single Judge and has not come up in appeal. The appeal has been preferred by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
5. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not indicated anywhere in the appeal or otherwise as to what precisely is his interest in the subject-matter in dispute. He never wanted occupation or allotment of the accommodation. He merely disposed of the application for release and allotment. He passed suitable orders under Section 7-A. His orders were judiciously adjudicated in the writ petition. He not having any interest in the subject-matter, was not an aggrieved person, and had, in our opinion, no locus standi to prefer an appeal,
6. On the merits, we are not satisfied that the learned single Judge committed any error. He applied the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and in applying them no error has been committed. It is clear that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application for release only on the ground that the existing accommodation was sufficient for the needs of the landlords. This, according to the Full Bench, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to consider. We find no substance in these appeals. They are dismissed with costs.