G V MASSEY Vs. E C DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal contention raised on behalf of the appellant in the special appeal is that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the needs of the landlord and the tenant had not been compared in the orders passed by the State Government and the Additional Commissioner. It was contended that a perusal of the orders of these two authorities made it abundantly clear that they had considered the comparative needs of the landlord and the tenant. It was not necessary, it was urged, that the authorities should say in so many words that the need of the parties had been compared and that the need of the landlord was greater than that of the tenant. In order to appreciate the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be necessary to set out briefly the undisputed facts.

(2.) THE appellant Massey is the landlord of an accommodation. He was formerly the tenant in the ground floor. Subsequently, he purchased the entire house. THE respondent no. 1 is the tenant in the upper portion of the house. He is a tenant continuing from more than 17 or 18 years. After having purchased the house, the appellant moved an application seeking permission under the provisions of Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 before the District Magistrate. THE application was considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who dismissed it. THE revision against the above order by the landlord was allowed by the Additional Commissioner holding that the landlord had a bonafide and genuine need for additional accommodation. A representation to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act by the tenant was dismissed. THE view taken by the Additional Commissioner was affirmed. THEreupon, the tenant filed a writ petition in this court which was allowed by learned Single Judge. THE learned Single Judge has held that neither the Commissioner nor the State Government has considered and weighed the need of the tenant as against that of the landlord. Relying on the Full Bench decision in the case of Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwal, 1968 AWR 572, the court held that the view taken by the two authorities was manifestly erroneous in law.

(3.) COMING to the order of the State Government, it must at once be noticed that this is an order of affirmance and the State Government was only to pass a speaking order. It was not necessary for the State Government to have elaborataley dealt with every circumstance. The order of the State Government also shows that the matter had been considered. The order shows that the respective needs of the parties were considered. There was a comparison of the strength of the families, the size of the accommodation in their possession, the need for additional accommodation. Ultimately, the order contains an expression to the following effect :-