Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.B. Singhal, Advocate for petitioners and Sri Madan Mohan, Advocate for respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.11.2003 passed by Prescribed Authority decreeing the suit of landlord-respondents under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”) holding building in question in dilapidated condition and, therefore, directing for eviction of petitioners from premises in dispute so that the landlord may get it reconstructed and the appellate order dated 24.4.2012 whereby the District Judge, Meerut has dismissed the appeal and confirmed judgment of trial Court.

3. The respondents-landlord filed P.A. Case No. 152 of 1999 before Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(b) of Act, 1972 for eviction of petitioners-tenants and to handover vacant possession of building in dispute, namely, house No. 183 Old, New No. 12, Chhipi Tank Meerut to them on the ground that it is in dilapidated condition and the landlords want to make new construction after after demolishing the same. The landlord also stated that he shall comply with the requirement of Section 24 of Act, 1972 by giving option of re-entry to the tenants.

4. The defendants-tenants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it is stated that tenants were occupying the premises in question for the last 40 years. They disputed the condition of building as being dilapidated and said that it is in a sound and good condition.

5. Both the parties submitted photographs of buildings, inside and outside, and also reports of architects which were obviously contradictory to each other. The trial Court after considering the pleadings, evidence and arguments passed judgment dated 13.11.2003 decreeing the suit and directed for eviction of defendants-tenants whereagainst an appeal being P.A. Appeal No. 214 of 2003 was filed in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Meerut by tenants-defendants. The said appeal was allowed by District Judge vide judgment dated 8.12.2004, whereagainst the landlord came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 4334 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 4.12.2009 and matter was remanded to appellate Court to pass a fresh order on the basis observations made by this Court. The relevant observations are as under:

“After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and after perusal of record, I am of view that placing reliance by Appellate Authority upon the report of amin is not correct and is not permissible because amin of the Court is not an expert, therefore, placing reliance on the amin report, the Appellate Court has committed an illegality on the face of record. The report of expert was there and prescribed authority after due consideration has recorded a finding that roof, wall and floor are in delipicated condition and it can fall at any time as the age of the building is above 60 years. A finding has also been recorded that there is a crack in the walls but the Appellate Authority only on the basis of the report of amin which supports the report of respondent-tenant has recorded a finding that in view of this fact it will be treated that building in question is not in delipicated condition. As regards, compliance of Rule 17 of Act No. 13 of 1972, the Appellate Authority has recorded a finding that findings recorded by prescribed authority is correct and needs no interference, meaning thereby only on the question that whether the building is in delipicated condition, the appellate authority only on the basis of technicality has allowed the appeal filed by respondents. Further Court below should have consider that tenant respondent will not suffer more hardship because after construction of new building he has a right of re-entry under Section 24 of the Act. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority has committed a