JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises out of the following circumstances: The house in dispute - house No. 2, Hewett Road, Allahabad was owned by one Jagannath Prasad. On 10th August, 1927 he executed a will by which he dedicated the house to Sri Hanumanji and installed an idol of Sri Hanumanji therein. It was provided in the will that as long as Sri Jagannath Prasad would be alive he would continue to be the proprietor of the house but after his death the house would become the property of Sri Hanumanji Maharaj Virajman in Kothri No. 8. The will further provided that the Mutwalli of the trust property would be the two daughters of the executant, Smt. Bittan alias Ram Piari and Smt. Bunni Devi. After the death of Sri Jagannath Prasad in 1943 Smt. Bittan and Smt. Bunni Devi became the Mutwalli of the house in dispute. Smt. Bittan died sometime nine years after the death of Jagannath Prasad and thereafter Smt. Bunni Devi became the sole trustee of the endowed property. A shop in the house in dispute was let out to the petitioner during the life time of Sri Jagannath Prasad and the petitioner had been running the business of second hand and new books in the said shop under the name and style "M/s. Students Friends, Allahabad." Another shop in the same house was in the occupation of the two sons of Smt. Bunni Devi who also ran their business of stationery and books under the name and style "Bharat Book Depot." 2. Smt. Bunni Devi filed an application under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer praying that permission be granted to her to file a suit for ejectment against the petitioner from the shop in his occupation as it was needed for the business of one of her sons which she attributed to be her personal use. The petitioner filed an objection against the application of Smt. Bunni Devi and alleged that the same had not been made bona fide and that it was not maintainable at the instance of Smt. Bunni Devi on the ground of personal need as she was only a Mutwalli of the property and was not an owner thereof in her personal capacity. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted permission to Smt. Bunni Devi under Sec. 3 of the Act and held that the application was maintainable. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer the petitioner went up in revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad. Before the revision could be heard the petitioner filed an application on 27th August, 1962 before the Commissioner for addition of certain grounds in the memo of revision. The learned Commissioner allowed the petitioner's application. When the revision came up for bearing on 4th January, 1963 a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the application of Smt. Bunni Devi was not maintainable under Sec. 3 of the Act on the ground that the house in dispute was an endowed property and Smt. Bunni Devi could not claim permission to accommodate her son in the endowed shop as it would mean giving preference to one tenant at the cost of another tenant. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Commissioner rejected the preliminary objection. The revision was then heard on merits and was dismissed on 29th January, 1963. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner, Allahabad, has preferred this petition and has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued and the orders dated 13th August, 1962 and 29th January, 1963 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner, Allahabad, respectively be quashed. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Ram Chandra Gupta, son of Smt. Bunni Devi. He claims in the counter-affidavit that Smt. Bunni Devi is the landlady of the house in dispute and is entitled to the rent of the house except the rent of one kothri which has to be spent for the puja of Sri Hanumanji and as such the application filed by Smt. Bunni Devi under Sec. 3 of the Act was maintainable. 5. 5. I have heard Sri S. N. Kacker learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. C. Khare learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Bunni Devi at some length. 6. Sri S. N. Kacker submitted that the entire house in dispute was endowed property and its owner was Sri Hanumanji Maharaj and hence an application under Sec. 3 of the Act for filing a suit for ejectment could only be filed on. behalf of the deity and permission under Sec. 3 of the Act could be granted only for the benefit of the trust. The learned counsel submitted that in the present case the application had not been filed on behalf of the deity by Smt. Bunni Devi in her capacity as Mutwalli of the property but in her personal capacity and therefore Smt. Bunni Devi was not a competent person to apply for permission to file a suit for ejectment and the application filed by her under Sec. 3 of the Act was not maintainable. Sri S.C. Khare, on the other hand, submitted that Sec. 2(c) of the Act defines "landlord" and the definition includes an agent, attorney, heir or assignee and since rent was payable to Smt. Bunni Devi as agent on behalf of the landlord she was, therefore, the landlord within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Act. Sri Khare contended that no restrictions have been placed on the powers of the District Magistrate under Sec. 3 of the Act to grant permission for filing a suit. As was laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan v. Smt. Rajo Devi, S.A. No. 163 of 1961 the definition of landlord in Sec. 2(c) of the Act is very comprehensive and includes not only a person to whom rent is payable by a tenant in respect of any accommodation but also includes agent or attorney of such person. Sec. 3 of , the Act creates no right to file a suit. The right to file a suit for ejectment arises under the Transfer of Property Act under which suits can be filed only by the owner of the property and not by an agent, assignee or attorney of the owner. Sec. 3 of the Act only prescribes certain limitations on the exercise of that right. The right to file a suit for ejectment arises under the Transfer of Property Act under which suits can be filed only by the owner of the property and not by an agent, assignee or attorney of the owner. Sec. 3 of the Act only prescribes certain limitations on the exercise of that right. Only that person can file an application for permission to institute a suit under Sec. 3 of the Act who is entitled, in fact, to file a suit for ejectment. In the instant case Smt. Bunni Devi is admittedly the trustee of the endowed property and under the Hindu Law where the dedication is absolute and complete, as is in this case, the right to file a suit is vested in the shebait. In the present case Smt. Bunni Devi did not file the application under Sec. 3 of the Act in her capacity as a trustee of the endowed property but in her personal capacity. In fact she does not even mention that her father had created a trust and that she was appointed a Mutwalli thereof. At the most Smt. Bunni Devi had a dual capacity, i.e. personal and fiduciary (as trustee). She did not apply for permission to file the suit as a Mutwalli but applied only in her personal capacity. Para. 1 of the application filed by Smt. Bunni Devi under Sec. 3 of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shows that she was making the application as landlady of the house in dispute and not as a shebait of the endowed property. It was mentioned in para. 13 of the application that "the landlady requires the premises for her personal use Annexure IV to the petition is an affidavit filed by Smt. Bunni Devi before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad. In para. 16 of that affidavit it was mentioned that her two sons had also a right in the house in dispute and their status was not that of tenants. A perusal of that affidavit further shows that she was seeking permission to file suit in her individual capacity and not as shebait on behalf of the deity. Annexure VI to the petition is an affidavit of Sri Rani Chandra Gupta, son of Smt. Bunni Devi. In para. A perusal of that affidavit further shows that she was seeking permission to file suit in her individual capacity and not as shebait on behalf of the deity. Annexure VI to the petition is an affidavit of Sri Rani Chandra Gupta, son of Smt. Bunni Devi. In para. 11 of that affidavit it was mentioned "the deponent or his brother who may occupy the portion vacated by the opposite party shall not have to pay any rent to Smt. Bunni Devi". This also suggests that the property was being claimed by Smt. Bunni Devi as owner thereof and not as Mutwalli, for in the latter case rent was bound to be paid to the credit of the deity. 7. Annexure V-A to the petition is a copy of the testamentary endowment deed dated 10th August, 1927. It is clear from its perusal that Sri Jagannath Prasad had dedicated the entire house to Sri Hanumanji. The following extracts from the deed of endowment are relevant for the purpose: "Uske nisbat meri dili mansha hai ki kul makan wa kothri muta liqa makan mazkur bahaq Sri Hanuman Ji Mazkur ke wasiyat kar doon." "Yeh ki bad wafat mere kul makan wa dukan ke malik kamil Sri Hanuman Ji Maharaj Birajman kothri number 8 ke wa mutwalli musarnmiyan Bittan urf Ram Piari wa musammat Bunni dukhtaran Kallu Bibi Zose ke hoenge." 8. It is clear, therefore, that Sri Hanuman Ji was the full owner and landlord of the entire property in dispute and Smt. Bunni Devi was only a trustee. Under the Hindu law a deity is a legal entity and can sue and be sued in its own name. Since Smt. Bunni Devi did not make the application under Sec. 3 of the Act in her capacity as trustee of the endowed property but in her personal capacity as owner and landlord, in my opinion, her application was not competent and, therefore, was not maintainable. 9. The next submission of Sri S. N. Kacker is that the learned Commissioner, Allahabad, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 3(2) of the Act, acted in a quasi judicial manner and was, therefore, bound to record his reasons for rejecting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the application under Sec. 3 of the Act. Sri Kacker urged that the question regarding the maintainability of the application made by Smt. Bunni Devi under Sec. 3 of the Act went to the very root of the matter and the learned Commissioner was bound in law to give his reasons for rejecting his plea. Sri Khare, on the other hand, contended that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the learned Commissioner and that the Commissioner was not required by law to give reasons for his order dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. Sri Khare in this connection relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjun, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 137 and Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 233. Sri Khare contended that it was essential that there must be a very clear error and their must be something more than a mere error in the impugned order. He urged that the law did not require the Commissioner to give any reasons in his order as there was no statutory provision to that effect. He submitted that the Commissioner was not called upon to give any reasons of his own after he had agreed with the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and did not find any irregularity in the order passed by the latter. 10. In view of my decision that the application filed by Smt. Bunni Devi under Sec. 3 of the Act for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute was not maintainable it is not necessary to decide the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. For the reasons mentioned above I allow this petition with costs and quash the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the learned Commissioner, Allahabad, on 13th August, 1962 and 29th January, 1963 respectively. I further direct the learned Munsif West Allahabad or any other court to which suit No. 80 of 1963 filed by Smt. Bunni Devi against the petitioner might have been transferred not to proceed further with the hearing of the suit.