JUDGMENT Hari Swarop, J. - This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of rent and Eviction Act Landlord applied for permission to file a suit for the eviction of the tenant. The District Magistrate granted the permission. Against the permission granted by the District Magistrate, the tenant went up in revision. The Commissioner allowed the revision and rejected the application for permission. The landlord filed a revision before the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act watch was allowed. The tenant has challenged the order of the State Government through this writ petition. 2. The findings of the State Government are that the landlord is in the armed forces, that after three or four years he is likely to retire from service that be may be tent to the front and then his family may need accommodation and that it will take time to get the accommodation vacated through suit and by that time the landlord may retire from service. None of these grounds is relevant. Thus, the State Government has found that the landlord would not require the accommodation for three or four years. It is conjectural that the landlord might be sent to the front and his family may be turned out of the army quarters and then they might require suitable accommodation. The presumption drawn by the State Government that it would take years to gat the premises vacated is also unwarranted. Once permission under Section 3 is granted and notice to quit Is served and a suit is instituted. It should not be expected that the tenant would succeed in resisting his eviction indefinitely. 3. The State Government could grant the permission only if it found that is presenti the landlord needed the accommodation and could not grant it on the basis of some need that might arise in future. While granting permission to sue to eject the tenant, the District Magistrate has to compare the needs of the landlord and tenant on the basis of facts existing on the date of application and not on the basis of facts or needs that may arise in future. Future need of the landlord cannot be compared with the present need of the tenant. Further the need of the tenant has nit been considered at all by state Government. 4. Future need of the landlord cannot be compared with the present need of the tenant. Further the need of the tenant has nit been considered at all by state Government. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the State Government is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.