JUDGMENT R.L. Gulati, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner gurdutta Singh purchased the house in dispute in 1962. It was a double storeyed house. The first floor was occupied by the petitioner, while the ground floor was in the tenancy of the fourth and the fifth respondents. The fourth respondent has since died and his legal representatives have been brought on the record. The petitioner, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'landlord', made an application under Section 3 of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the two tenants. The permission was granted by the third respondent the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Hardo, holding that the need of the landlord was genuine. The tenants applied in revision to the second respondent, the Commissioner. Lucknow, division Lucknow. The Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the view that although the need of the landlord was genuine yet need of the tenants could not be sacrificed. The landlord then approached the first respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, under Section 7F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act. That revision has been dismissed. Hence this petition. 3. The first submission on behalf of the landlord is that he needed the accommodation for his own use and occupation and as such he was entitled to eject the tenants and the Rent Control authorities bound to grant him such permission. He relies upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Permeshwar Dayal v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow and others, 1963 A.L.J. 296. That decision no doubt supports the petitioner's contention. There it was held that an order granting permission to eject a tenant was not invalid if it did take into consideration the needs of the tenant. In other words it was held that when the landlord proved that he required the accommodation for his own use genuinely, the tenant could not resist eviction. 4. There it was held that an order granting permission to eject a tenant was not invalid if it did take into consideration the needs of the tenant. In other words it was held that when the landlord proved that he required the accommodation for his own use genuinely, the tenant could not resist eviction. 4. In a later Division Bench case of Dwarka Prasad v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, Faizabad Division, 1966 A.L.J. 850, it has been held that in order to grant permission to a landlord to eject his tenant, it is necessary that the needs of the landlord and the tenants should be compared and the permission should be granted only if the need of the landlord is found to be grater than that of the tenant. 5. In Asa Singh v. B.D. Sanwal, 1969 Rent Control Reporter 90 : 1968 A.L.J. 713, Full Bench of this Court considered the question afresh. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court the Full Bench held that a fair comparison of the needs of the landlord and the tenant had to be made before any order granting permission under Section 3 for the ejectment of a tenant could be passed. It is thus clear that the earlier view of the Full Bench in the case of Parmeshwar Dayal (supra) stands over-ruled. The settled legal position appears to be that where the accommodation is in the occupation of a tenant the landlord can succeed in getting the permission under Section 3 of the Act only if he can prove that his need is greater than that of the tenant. He cannot succeed merely by saying that his own need is genuine. There must be comparison between the needs of the landlord and the tenant. The contention that the landlord was entitled to an order for the ejectment of the tenants, merely by showing that his need was genuine must be rejected. 6. Now, coming to the facts of this case, it appears that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has considered the matter at great length. He has found that the landlord runs a cycle shop just in front of the house in dispute. He lives at a distance in Railway ganj, where he keeps a godown for his business. He has also found that the shop in which the landlord is carrying on business is to small for his needs. He has found that the landlord runs a cycle shop just in front of the house in dispute. He lives at a distance in Railway ganj, where he keeps a godown for his business. He has also found that the shop in which the landlord is carrying on business is to small for his needs. He has also found that he needs a godown along with the shop or near it. His having a residence and godown at a distance of his shop is causing great inconvenience, so that if the landlord can have his shop and the house together in the same vicinity, it will help him in carrying on his business. He has also dealt with the objection raised by the tenants. The most important objection of the tenants was that the landlord had some other houses in the town and he could very well shift his business to one of such houses. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has very rightly pointed out that that is not a feasible proposal. The landlord has established a good will in respect of his business. The good will is attached to the name as well as to the locality where a person carries on his business. He has also found that the locality where the landlord is carrying on business is a market for cycle business and if he shifts his business to some other locality, as he indeed did once before, his business would suffer. He has also found that the upper story of the house had been pulled down under the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, because it was in a dilapidated condition, and was dangerous to public safety. He has further found that the house is nearly fifty years old and has out lived its life. He has further found that the landlord wants to pull down the house and construct a new building, the lower portion of which he could use as his shop and godown and the upper portion for his residence. He has also found that the landlord has already got the plan of the proposed building duly sectioned from the Municipal Board and he is only waiting for the house to be vacated so as to set up the new construction. 7. As regards the tenants, he found that they are living in that accommodation for the last thirty or forty years. 7. As regards the tenants, he found that they are living in that accommodation for the last thirty or forty years. One of the tenants runs an Ayurvedic shop and also lives there, while the other tenant only resides there. The Rent Control and Eviction Office came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord being genuine, he was entitled to permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the tenants. When the matter went before the Commissioner, he did not disagree with the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the need of the landlord was genuine but he expressed the opinion that even then the need of the tenants could not be sacrificed. The State Government has merely endorsed the view of the Commissioner. 8. To me it appears that the Commissioner and the State Government have misdirected themselves. They seem to be of the opinion that where the tenants need the accommodation, their need cannot be sacrificed so that the landlord cannot get the permission to eject the tenants however greater and genuine his need may be. This is clearly an erroneous approach. What the law requires is that the needs of the landlord and the tenants should be compared and if the needs of the landlord are found to be greater than the tenant is entitled to the protection and the landlord cannot sue him for ejectment. Neither the Commissioner nor the State Government have found that the needs of the tenants were greater than that of the landlord. Every tenant needs an accommodation so long as he occupies it. The fact that a tenant is living in an accommodation since long is not enough. It must be shown that the tenants would suffer some irreparable injury or damage if they are evicted. For example, if it was found that the tenants would not be able to obtain an equally suitable accommodation elsewhere that would be a relevant circumstance to consider, but just to say that the need of the tenant can not be sacrificed because the landlord needs the accommodation for himself is no ground for refusing the permission to the landlord. If that view is accepted, no landlord would ever get permission to sue his tenant so long as the tenant requires the accommodation. That is not the legal position. If that view is accepted, no landlord would ever get permission to sue his tenant so long as the tenant requires the accommodation. That is not the legal position. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as by the State Government suffer from a manifest error of law and deserve to be quashed. 9. This petition is accordingly allowed. The orders of the second respondent, the Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow, dated February 8, 1968 and that of the first respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, which is undated, a copy of which is Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.