KUNWAR AYURVEDIC PHARMACY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a tenant of premises No. 19/27 Patlcapur, Kanpur, Respondent No. 4 Smt. Chando Devi is the landlady of the premises. The premises is governed by the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The landlady moved an ap plication under Section 3 of the said Act before Rent Control and Eviction Officer for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the appellant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties refused to grant permission. The respon dent landlady filed a revision against that order which was dismissed by the Commis sioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad on July 17, 1964. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent chal lenged its validity by filing a petition under Section 7-F of the Act to the State Gov ernment. The State Government allowed the petition by its order dated February 9, 1966 (Annexure K to the writ petition). The appellant thereafter challenged the validity of the aforesaid order by filing a writ peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution. One of the grounds taken in the writ petition was that as the proceedings before the State Government were quasi-judicial in nature, the State Government was bound to state reasons for its order and as the order did not contain reasons for interfering with the concurrent findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner, it was bad in law. The learned Single Judge who heard the petition, however, was of the opinion that "there is no warrant to hold that the law costs on the State Govern ment a duty to give reasons" and further that "it is the need of the landlord or the owner which tilts the scale and the Rent Control authorities would be in error if they empha sise the need of the tenant in such a matter and refuse to grant the permission to the owner on that ground alone." Accordingly the learned Judge dismissed the writ peti tion; hence this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. Ft. G. N. Kunzru, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that as till 1965 the view of the High Court was that although the State Government is to act quasi-judicially under Section 7-F of the Act, it was not required to give any specific reasons, and as the impugned order of the State Government is in accordance with those decisions of the High Court, the subsequent view taken by two Full Benches of this Court should not be allowed to have adverse repercussion on the impugned order which was passed before they were render ed. It has been urged further that the State Government had passed the order after holding an enquiry into the matter and after coming to the conclusion that the landlady needed the house for her residence. We regret our inability to agree with these con tentions.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid order makes it evidence that no specific reasons had been given by the State Government for interfering with the order of the Com missioner in the case. It is true that an omnibus reason has been specified, namely, that the State Government considered it in the interest of justice to give her the per mission. That is, however, no reason for interfering with the concurrent findings ar rived at by the Rent Control Officer and the Commissioner that the landlady was not en titled to get permission to eject the tenant, It can be easily inferred from the orders of the Rent Control Officer and the Commis sioner that in addition to the reasons mentioned in their orders they too were satisfied that it was in the interest of justice that the landlady should not be allowed permission to file a suit for ejectment. Therefore, if the State Government was of opinion, that the orders of the subordinate authorities suf fered from any defect, it should have given specific reasons for the same.