JUDGMENT S. Chandra, J. - The appellant is the landlord of the shop in dispute. He applied for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of respondent No. 1 who was a tenant of the accommodation in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer upheld the claim of the landlord and granted the requisite permission. On revision the Commissioner reversed the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and held that the need of the landlord was not genuine. The application was rejected and the requisite permission was withdrawn. The landlord went up to the State Government under section 7-F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947. The State Government held that the need of the landlord was genuine. It reversed the order of the Commissioner and granted the requisite permission. 2. Aggrieved the tenant instituted a writ petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge held that the Commissioner had recorded a finding that the landlord had, prior to his making the application for the ejectment of the tenant, let out a shop to a stranger Babu Ram Sharma. That shows that he was not in immediate need of the accommodation to carry on business. The Commissioner also found that shortly prior to the making of the application in question the landlord had obtained two shops from the Municipal Board, and in those shops be was actually carrying on business. He was hence not in need of the shop in dispute. The tenant was carrying on business in the shop in dispute for a long time, and it will not be proper to eject him. The learned Single Judge held that the State Government committed a manifest error of law in not applying its mind to these finding of the Commissioner. On this view the order of the State Government was quashed. Aggrieved, the landlord has come up in appeal. 3. We have perused the various orders. It is apparent that the State Government did not consider the findings mentioned above recorded by the Commissioner. It was in law incumbent upon the State Government to have recorded its own findings on those questions before it could legitimately set aside the order of the Commissioner. That not having been done, the order of the State Government cannot be sustained. It was in law incumbent upon the State Government to have recorded its own findings on those questions before it could legitimately set aside the order of the Commissioner. That not having been done, the order of the State Government cannot be sustained. In our opinion, the State Government must apply its mind to the relevant materials on record and give proper findings to meet the objections that appealed to the Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to clause (o) of section 43(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This Act has repealed the old Rent Control and Eviction Act of 1947. Under clause (o) aforesaid a revision under section 7-F of the old Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act before the State Government is liable to be disposed of by the State Government. The effect of the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the State Government, coupled with our direction that the revision should be decided by the State Government afresh, is that the pre-existent revision revives and be- comes pending. The revival and the pendency accrues and, comes into existence on the quashing of the order but on that event happening, the revival is not from the date when the order is quashed, but with effect from the date when the revision was instituted. The pendency of the revision will count from the date it was instituted, and till the day it is now disposed of with the quashing of the order of the State Government, with a direction that it should decide the revision afresh, the same revision becomes pending and needs to be disposed of by a fresh order. In our opinion the revision in question would be pending immediately before the commencement of that Act within the meaning of clause (o) aforesaid as a result of the quashing of the order of the State Government by the High Court. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified and it is directed that the State Government shall pass a fresh order to dispose of the revision in the light of the observations made above. The parties may, however, bear their own costs of this appeal.