Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.)THE question referred to us reads:
"Whether the State Government is In law liable to state the reasons for an order refusing to interfere under Section 7-F of the Rent Control and Evic tion Act with an order of the Commis sioner passed under Section 3(3) of the Act?"

(2.)THE relevant and of the case are:-necessary facts The petitioners, Hajl Manzoor Ahmad and Dr. Maqbool Ahmad, are the land lords of premises No. CK 66/3 situate in Mohalla Benia Bagh, in the city of Vara nasi. The respondents Nos. 4 to 7, that is, Sarvasri Sher Andil Khan, Moghal Khan, Abdullah Khan and Mannan Khan, are the tenants in possession of the pre mises aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the premises). The respondents Nos. I to 3 are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Vara-nasi and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi.
The petitioners made an application under Section 3 of the UP. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (here inafter referred to as the Act) for per mission to eject the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 from the premises. The respondents Nos. 4 to 7 filed an objection and on 10-7-1964 the Area Rationing Officer, Rent Control, Varanasi, dismissed the peti tioners' application. The petitioners filed a revision application before the Com missioner, Varanasi Division, who by his order dated 31-7-1964 remanded the case back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi. After remand the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 21-5-1966 granted permission to the petitioners to file a suit for the ejectment of the respondents from the ground floor only, but rejected the appli cation with regard to the upper storey. The petitioners filed a revision application against the aforesaid order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division and so did the respondents Nos. 4 to 7. The learned Commissioner heard both the revision application together and by an order dated 18-7- 1966 dismissed the petitioners' revision application and allow ed that of the respondents Nos. 4 to 7, thus revoking the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction pfficer. The petitioners then filed a revision applica tion under Section 7-F of the Act before the State Government. That revision application was rejected by the State Government, according to the petitioners, on 3-1Q-1966. The petitioners have filed Annexure 'G' to the Writ Petition treat ing it as an order passed by the State Government rejecting their revision ap plication. It reads: - @ HINDI

(3.)THE petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India and have prayed that the order of the State Government be quashed. The main ground that was urged before the learned single Judge at the time of the hearing of the instant writ petition was that the State Govern ment was bound to pass a reasoned order and inasmuch as annexure 'G' to the writ petition does not contain the reasons, the order of the State Government is liable to be quashed.