ORDER R.L. Gulati, J. - The Petitioner is a tenant of a house in Dehradun which belongs to the second Respondent--Har Nath Singh Rana. The house appears to be a small one, consisting of two rooms two varandahs and a courtyard and the rent is Rs. 16/- per month. The Petitioner says that he is living in the house for the last 20 years with his family of 11 members. The landlord moved an application u/s 3 of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent arid Eviction Act, seeking per-mission to file a Suit for ejectment of the Petitioner on the ground that he needed the house in dispute for his own use, inasmuch as he Wanted his wife to be lodged in the' said house for treatment at Dehradun. It appears that the landlord is employed in the Military Department and Was posted at Agra. The application was rejected by the RC and EO. The land-lord filed a revision before the Commr., who remanded the ease to the RC and EO with the following directions: The revisionist will within a month from today have examined his wife of Civil Surgeon Dehradun and produce examination report before the RC and EO, Dehradun. The land-lord produced the report of the Civil Surgeon but the RC and EO was not satisfied about the genuineness of the land-lord's need. He accordingly rejected his application. Thereafter the land-lord once again went up in revision before the Commr. The Commr. also rejected his revision. Then he approached the State Govt. u/s 7-F of the Act. The State Govt. has allowed the application of the land-lord, has set aside the orders of the Commr. and the RC and EO and has granted the permission to the land-lord to institute a suit for the ejectment of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged the order of the State Govt. in this petition Under Article 226 of tile Constitution. 2. The impugned order has been challenged on two grounds : (i) that the State Govt. has not taken into consideration the need of the Petitioner and has merely confined itself to the need of the land-lord; and (2) that the impugned order is baled upon extraneous material and as such, is vitiated. 3. I shall take up tile second point first. 4. It appears that the Petitioner produced before the State Govt. has not taken into consideration the need of the Petitioner and has merely confined itself to the need of the land-lord; and (2) that the impugned order is baled upon extraneous material and as such, is vitiated. 3. I shall take up tile second point first. 4. It appears that the Petitioner produced before the State Govt. a letter, written by his Commanding Officer in which it is stated that the Petitioner has been posted to a (sic) in Assam which is a non-family station and as such, he cannot take his family there. In other words, the letter purports to recommend to the State Govt. that the need of the land-lord is genuine and he deserves the release of the house in hit favour. Now this letter admittedly was not before the RC and EO nor before the Commr. and it was filed for the first time before the State Govt. The Slate Govt. decided the application u/s 7-F without notice to the Petitioner so that the Petitioner was not a ware of the letter of Commanding Officer and as such, had; no opportunity of producing evidence in Rebuttal. 5. Now it is well settled that the proceedings u/s 7-F are of a quasi-judicial nature and must be decided on the basis of the evidence brought on the record by the parties in a legal manner. The State Govt. is not expected to take into consideration any material which is filed before it for the first time and of which no notice is given to the other side. The State Govt. has relied upon this letter as is clear from the impugned order. Since this letter was entertained by the State Govt. behind the back of the Petitioner, the same is not admissible. As such the impugned order stands vitiated. 6. It must be borne in mind by the State Govt. that while it functions in a quasi-judicial manner u/s 7-F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, it must conduct the proceedings in a judicial manner and must not allow itself to be influenced by any extraneous considerations. 7. As regards the first contention, it is not necessary to express any opinion thereon as the Petitioner succeeds on the ground already indicated. However, it is desirable to add that in a matter like the present one, the, State Govt. 7. As regards the first contention, it is not necessary to express any opinion thereon as the Petitioner succeeds on the ground already indicated. However, it is desirable to add that in a matter like the present one, the, State Govt. is expected to weigh the comparative needs of the landlord and the tenant. The need of the landlord alone is not enough to entitle him to evict his tenant. In the instant case, the State Govt. has not said a word about the need of the Petitioner. 8. The petition is allowed. The order of the State Govt. dated 8-11-1971 (Annexure III to the writ petition); passed u/s 7-F of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is quashed. It will be open to the State Govt. to decide the revision, application afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations mage above. The Petitioner is entitled to costs.