AZIZUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(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 6/08/1962, respondent No. 2 applied to the Rent control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, under S. 3 of the U. 'p. 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 No. 2. Thereafter respondent No. 2 took the matter in revision to the State government under Section 7 (F) of the U. P. 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) (A) 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 belore 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 itas the proceeding before the State government was a quasi-judicial one as held by this court in several cases.