JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - The Petitioner is the landlord of house No. 107, Nawabganj, Muzaffarnagar, and Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the tenants thereof. The Petitioner made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer u/s 3 of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) for permission to file a civil suit against Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for their eviction. By his order dated December 28, 1962, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the permission u/s 3. Against this order Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed a revision but the same was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, by his order dated August 29, 1963. Thereupon Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed a revision u/s 7F of the Act before the State Govt. By an order dated February 2, 1965 the State Govt. allowed the revision, set aside the orders, passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and dismissed the application of the Petitioner for permission u/s 3 of the Act. It is against this order of the State Govt. that this writ petition is directed. 2. The only point urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner before us is that the State Government was required to act quasi judicially and it was bound to state the treasons for its order and that, since no reasons are stated in the order, the order is bad and liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. In a recent decision reported in Vinod Chandra Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and Anr. (1) (1965 ALJ 740) a Divwon Bench of this Court has held that Section 7F of the Act does not require the State Govt. to make a speaking order and that an order, which did not state the reasons therefor, was not bad. But it is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is no longer good law in view of the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Sardar Govindrao and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1222 : The next question is whether Govt. was justified in making the order of April 26, 1955 ? That order gives no reasons at all. The Act lays upon the Govt. a duty which obviously must be performed in a judicial manner. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1222 : The next question is whether Govt. was justified in making the order of April 26, 1955 ? That order gives no reasons at all. The Act lays upon the Govt. a duty which obviously must be performed in a judicial manner. The Appellants do not seem to have been heard at all. The Act bars a suit and there is all the more reasons that Govt. must deal with such cases in a quasi indicial manner, giving an opportunity to the claimants to slate their case in the light of the report of the Deputy Commissioner. The Appellants were also entitled to know the reasons why their claim for the grant of money or a pension was rejected by Government and how they were considered as not falling within the class of persons who it was clearly intended by the Act to be compensated in this manner. 3. It is necessary to examine this case closely to see whether it lays down that all quasi judicial orders must state the reasons therefor. 4. In the case before the Supreme Court, Govind Rao and others claimed that they were descendants of a former Ruling Chief and that they held estates on favourable terms as jagirdars, Muafidars and Ubaridars and enjoyed exemptions from payment of land revenue. This exemption was revoked by the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Central Revenue Exemption Act, 1948 (hereinafter reformed to as the C.P. Act) They applied to the State Govt. for the grant of money or pension u/s 5(3) of the C.P. Act. Their application was rejected by the State Govt. without giving any reasons. Govind Rao and others filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and a Full Bench of that High Court held that the State Government was not compelled to grant either money or pension because the exercise of powers u/s 5 was discretionary and the writ petition was on that account incompetent. Against the order of the High Court an appeal was brought before the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court took the view that Section 5(3) of the C.P. Act casts an obligation upon the State Government to grant money or pension in the cases of persons falling within that Sub-section. Against the order of the High Court an appeal was brought before the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court took the view that Section 5(3) of the C.P. Act casts an obligation upon the State Government to grant money or pension in the cases of persons falling within that Sub-section. It observed: "of course, it need not make a grant if the person claiming is not a descendant of a former Ruling Chief or there is other reasonable ground not to grant money or pension. But, except in those cases where there are good grounds for not granting the pension, Govt. is bound to make a grant to those who fulfill the required conditions and the word 'may' in the third Sub-section, though apparently discretionary, has to be read as 'must'. 5. The question whether all quasi judicial orders must state reasons did not arise before the Supreme Court. The observations, upon which learned Counselor the Petitioner has placed reliance, must be read in the context of the findings of the Supreme Court In the view taken by the Supreme Court the State Govt. had first to determine whether the applicant, u/s 5(3) of the C.P. Act, was a descendant of the former Ruling Chief who had lost exemption under that Act and, if it found in favour of the applicant, it was incumbent upon the State Govt. to make the grant unless it further found that there were good reasons for not granting it. The State Govt. could refuse to make a grant only if it found that the applicant u/s 5(3) was no a descendant of a former Ruling Chie who had lost exemption under that Act or if it found that there existed good, reasons for not making the grant in his favour. It was in this context that the Supreme Court observed: The Appellants were also entitled to know the reason why their claim for the grant of money or a pension was rejected by Government and how they were considered as not falling within the class of persons who it was clearly intended by the Act to be compensated in this manner." Clearly, the State Govt. there had to find certain facts before it could refuse to make the grant and the order of the State Government did not show that any such facts had been found. there had to find certain facts before it could refuse to make the grant and the order of the State Government did not show that any such facts had been found. In our opinion, the observations of the Supreme Court can only be read as laying down that, in passing an order u/s 5(3) of the C.P. Act, the State Govt. must state its reasons. We are unable to read these observations as laying down any general rule that every authority required to act in a quasi judicial manner must give reasons for its orders. We think such an authority is obliged to give reasons for its orders only in two cases, viz, (i) when the statute or law, under which it acts, requires it to do so; and (ii) when it is empowered to pass a certain kind of order only upon its finding that certain facts or conditions exist. 6. The relevant portion of Section 7F of the Act reads as follows: 7 F-The State Govt. may call for the record of any case granting or refusing to grant permission for the filing of a suit for eviction referred to in Section 3....and may make such order as appears to it necessary or the ends of justice. There is no provision in the Act or the rules which requires the State Govt. to state the reasons for its order u/s 7F. The section does not enquire it to arrive at any particular finding before it can either allow or dismiss a revision filed before it. In these circumstances, we are unable to old that, in making an order u/s 7F of the Act, the State Govt. is around to state its reasons. The connation of learned Counsel for the Petitioner must, therefore, be rejected. 7. The writ petition is dismissed.