JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the State Government made under Section 7-F of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. 2. The appellant is the landlord of premises No. 48/84 and respondent No. 4 is the tenant thereof. The appellant filed an application under Section 3 of the Act, for permission to evict respondent No. 4 from the premises. The case set up by her was that she was being evicted from the premises No. 48/43 in which she was carrying on business. The dispute relates to a shop on the ground floor. Admittedly, the appellant is occupying the first floor and the second floor of premises No. 48/84. In premises No. 48/43 the appellant was occupying two godowns on the ground floor and certain residential accommodation on the first and second floors, which she was not using for her own residential purposes. The need set up in the present case is not a need for residential accommodation, but for commercial accommodation. It may be mentioned that the appellant has already been granted permission for evicting another tenant occupying another shop in premises No. 48/84. It also appears that the appellant has at her disposal another commercial premises No. 55/113-114 in the same Mohalla. It was alleged by the appellant that respondent No. 4 also had another accommodation at his disposal in premises No. 56/68 in the same Mohalla. After considering the case of both sides, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application for permission. A revision filed against the order was dismissed by the Commissioner and a representation made under Section 7-F to the State Government was also dismissed The writ petition challenging these orders was dismissed by the learned Single, Judge. Hence this appeal. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that no interference is called for in this appeal. All the three authorities have considered the need of the parties and compared them and thereafter have held that is not a fit case for the grant of permission. The learned Counsel mainly relied upon a statement contained in the judgment of the Commissioner where he has erroneously mentioned that shop No. 56/68 was also in the tenancy of the appellant. The learned Counsel mainly relied upon a statement contained in the judgment of the Commissioner where he has erroneously mentioned that shop No. 56/68 was also in the tenancy of the appellant. This mistake was pointed out before the State Government and the order of the State Government shows that it was aware of the correct position. The State Government has also considered the needs of both parties and has come to the conclusion that the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner were correct. The learned Counsel has criticised the order of the State Government on the ground that there has been no real consideration and comparison of the needs of the parties. We are unable to agree with this contention. It may be that the consideration is not as detailed as one would expect in a contentious matter, but there has been a substantial consideration of the needs and their comparison by the State Government. In this situation, there is no ground for interpreting with the order of the State Government, even if every aspect of the matter has not been considered in detail. The order is one of affirmance and substantially complies with the requirements of law. 4. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal is without merits and is hereby dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs in this appeal as well as in the writ petition.