SITAL DAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of two shops in premises No. 4/143, New Hardeoganj, Belanganj, Agra, They were allotted to him under Section 7 (2) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evic tion Act (hereinafter called the Act). The landlord moved an application under Sec tion 3 of the Act seeking permission to file a suit for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of personal need. The Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer by his order dated 25-1-1971 granted necessary permission after considering the comparative needs of the ten ant and the landlord. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to avail of the offer made by the landlord and surrender one of the two shops in his occupation within fifteen days of the making of the order. The peti tioner filed a revision before the Commis sioner, Agra Division, Agra, under S. 3 (2) of the Act. The Commissioner dismissed the revision but allowed one month's time to the petitioner from the date of his order to avail of the offer made to him by the landlord and surrender one of the shops in favour of the landlord. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 7-F of the Act before the State Gov ernment and reiterated the various pleas rais ed by him before the Rent Control and Evic tion-Officer and the Commissioner. The State Government, by its order dated 25-10-1972, rejected the petition. The landlord thereafter moved an application under Section 21 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for the ejectment of the petitioner from the accom modation in dispute. The Prescribed Autho rity issued a notice to the petitioner 'dated 13-11-1972 to show cause why he should not be evicted. Thereupon the petitioner filed the above noted petition for quashing the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the Commissioner and the State Government dated 25-1-1971, 9-8-1971 and 25-10-1972 res pectively.

(2.) LEARNED counsel, for the petitioner contended that the authorities concerned failed to apply their minds in considering the comparative need of the petitioner and that of the landlord and. that the order of the State Government did not contain any rea sons for rejecting the petition under S. 7-F of the Act. I have carefully looked into the orders passed by the various authorities re ferred to earlier and I find no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner. All the authorities appear to have carefully weighed the comparative needs of the tenant and the landlord and on being satisfied that the need of the landlord was bona fide and more pres sing, permission was accorded for filing a suit for the eviction of the petitioner. The con tention of the petitioner that the order of the State Govt. does not disclose any reason and independent application of mind for the rejection of the petition under Section 7-F of the Act is without any substance. It has referred -to the various pleas raised by the parties and then arrived at the conclusion that no interference against the order of the sub ordinate authorities was called' for. As the State Government affirmed the orders passed by the subordinate authorities; it was not necessary to discuss the entire evidence in detail. The order does indicate that the State Government applied its mind to the compara tive needs of the parties.

(3.) IN this connection a further argu ment was advanced that the State Govern ment did not afford another opportunity to the petitioner to accept the offer made by the landlord and vacate one of the two shops in his possession. It was urged that the peti tioner was agreeable now to surrender one of the shops to the landlord. The petitioner failed to take advantage of the offer made by the landlord and the two opportunities af forded by the subordinate authorities. He cannot be heard to complain that the State Government did not again offer him that option or that this Court should now permit him to take advantage of the offer made by the landlord after having failed in his contest right up to the State Government.