JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-The suit premises is part of a building situated in the pilgrimage city of Haridwar. The building was in occupation of four sets of tenants occupying different portions. Swami Ashanand, the respondent No. 1, who is admittedly the landlord-owner, initiated proceedings for eviction against all the tenants on the ground available under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The eviction was ordered against all the tenants. Three tenants have given up the possession over the premises in their occupation to the landlord-respondent. One of the tenants, namely Sheel Chandra, who has also expired during the pendency of these proceedings and whose widow and two sons are respectively the two appellants and proforma respondent No. 3, are pursuing the proceedings. The appellate authority has dismissed their appeal and the High Court too has dismissed their writ petition. This appeal is by special leave.

2. The case pleaded by the respondent No. 1 and which has been found proved by all the three Courts is that he is a sanyasi. His object in life is to preach religion and perform religious rites. He used to roam a