K.S. HEGDE, J.
1. The second respondent in this appeal is the owner of a premises in the city of Kanpur. The appellant is occupying that premises as a tenant. On August 6, 1962, Respondent 2 applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, under Section 3 of the UP Rent Control and Eviction Act, for permission to file a suit in the civil court for eviction of the appellant from the premises primarily on the ground that the said premises is required for starting dry-cleaning business by his son. The Rent Controller after holding the necessary enquiry granted the permission asked for but in revision the Commissioner reversed the order of the Rent Controller and rejected the application of Respondent 2. Thereafter Respondent 2 took the matter in revision to the State Government under Section 7(F) of the UP Rent Control and Eviction Act. The State Government after giving an opportunity to the parties to represent their case reversed the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The appellant challenged the order of the State Government by means of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court summarily dismissed that writ petition. Thereafter this appeal has been brought after obtaining from the High Court a certificate under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution.
2. The only ground that appears to have been urged before the High Court against the order of the State Government was that the State Government before passing the order had called for the comments of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer; those comments had not been made available to the appellant before he represented his case to the State Government and therefore the order of the State Government is vitiated as it contravened the principles of natural justice. The High Court before summarily rejecting the writ petition had called for the comments in question. After perusing the same, it found those comments to be innocuous as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not expressed any opinion in those comments.
3. It was urged before us that the very fact that the State Government had occasion to look into the comments of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer behind the back of the appellant, has vitiated the order made by it as the proceeding before the State Government was a quasi-judicial one as held by this Court in several cases.
4. We are unable to accept this contention. This Court has said more than once that the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Before coming to the conclusion that any particular procedure adopted had contravened the principles of natural justice, the court must be satisfied that the procedure adopted was not conducive to reach a just decision. A party is not entitled as of right to have his attention called to any material that may come before a quasi-judicial tribunal unless the material in question is likely to prejudice his case either directly or indirectly. The learned Judges of the High Court before dismissing the writ petition had called for the comments of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and perused the same. They have come to the conclusion that those comments are innocuous. We are sure that the learned counsel for the appellant before the High Court also must have had an opportunity to look into those comments. It is not mentioned either in the application made to the High Court for certificate or in the petition of appeal that the appellant or his counsel had no opportunity to look into those comments when the same was before the High Court.
5. We see no substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.