Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

2. None appeared on behalf of respondents though case has been called in revised and names of Sri A.C. Tripathi and Sri R.K. Tiwari have been shown as counsel for respondents.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) before Prescribed Authority seeking release of shop in question occupied by petitioner-tenant on the ground that it was required by the landlords for setting up a business by the landlord-applicant No. 1, namely, Dwarika Prasad Agarwal, relating to sale and purchase, printing and publishing of books and Panchangs; and binding. The application was registered as P.A. Case No. 45 of 1992, which was contested by petitioner-tenant stating that landlord is already engaged in business of sale, purchase, printing and publications of books, panchang, calender and diaries under the name and style “Sri Thakur Prasad Pustak Bhandar” in a very specious accommodation in the premises No. CK 25/14 situated in Kachauri Gali, Varanasi. Since long, they are having a Press, namely, “Bharat Press” in the same premises. They had another Printing Press at Premises No. 67/82, Nati Imli, Varanasi.

4. The premises CK 25/14 actually is a very big property covering about five biswa of land and a number of shops are situated thereon. It is a two story building namely ground floor and first floor and most of the part and rooms of this building are in possession and occupation of applicant-landlords. The landlords possess several commercial accommodations available to them and their other brothers. Late Sri Thakur Prasad Agarwal in fact left a number of buildings, namely Premises No. CK-48/168, Haraha Sarai, Varanasi, CK54/39, CK 541, CK 54/41 and CK 543, Govindpura Varanasi. Petitioner is an old tenant in building for the last 60 years paying regular rent. He has no other accommodation. In case, evicted, he would render jobless. Therefore, he requested that the application of landlord be rejected.

5. The application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 4.5.1995 and petitioner’s Rent Appeal No. 158 of 1995 has been dismissed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi on 11.10.2004.

6. Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner contended that in the premises in question, namely, CK 25/14, besides the fact that the landlord-respondents possess most of the accommodation consisting of various shops etc. there are six other tenants namely, Madho Rao, Raja Ram, Lautu Ram, Sankatha Prasad, Sheetla Prasad and Bechoo. Number of other accommodations are possessed by landlords for running their business but these facts were not disclosed in the Release Application. Since, both the parties had filed various evidences in support of assertions of facts in their pleadings, petitioners filed two applications requesting the Trial Court for local inspection through Advocate Commissioner but the same remained pending and were not disposed of. Then another application was filed before Appellate Court at the time when appeal was pending whereupon an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who submitted his report dated 5.12.1998 (Annexure 20 to writ petition). In the said report, the Commissioner has given details of various properties possessed by respondent-landlords and also the fact that he was not allowed to inspect a large number of premises in possession of respondent-landlords at different buildings, details whereof are given in the report, on account whereof measurement and inspection thereof could not be done in detail. However, this report has not at all been considered and referred to by the Appellate Court while passing the impugned appellate order rejecting appeal though it has material impact on the matter and once the appellate