Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Komal Mehrotra, Advocate for respondents.

2. It is contended that though eviction proceedings were initiated against petitioners on the ground of Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”), i.e., the building is in dilapidated condition and requires to be reconstructed after demolition but the proceedings were initiated by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 through power of attorney holder, Sri Padam Prakash and two more persons, namely, Sri Sanjay Prakash and Sri Amit Prakash, both sons of Sri Padam Prakash, who were also impleaded as plaintiffs No. 5 and 6, though they had no right to the property in dispute.

3. It is said that the entire proceedings in fact were initiated, controlled and persuaded by holder of power of attorney of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Admittedly the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were landlords and owner of accommodation in question but the real owners and landlords never come forward and it is only the holder of power of attorney who has prosecuted entire matter, so much so that, in respect of such matters where the evidence relating to status and position of landlords and owners was to be seen, there the power of attorney holders have adduced evidence of their own status and position etc. and the Courts below accepting the same have recorded a finding in favour landlords owners and passed impugned orders. It is thus contended that entire approach of Courts below in passing impugned orders is patently erroneous and illegal.

4. In order to appreciate the objection and serious contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be apt to have a bird eye view of brief facts of this case.

5. The dispute relates to House No. 157 Shivaji Marg, Meerut City, which is owned by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The respondent No. 1 is the mother of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are son and daughters. They entered into an “agreement to sell” of the house in question, on 10.3.1999, with respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The symbolic possession of property was also given to them with further right to recover rent from tenants. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as also 5 and 6 instituted eviction proceedings by filing PA Case No. 112 of 1999 vide plaint dated 30.8.1999 alleging that house in question is in dilapidated condition and, therefore, is required to be vacated by petitioners for the purpose of demolition and new construction. Smt. Pramodini Srivastava, respondent No. 1, herself and in the capacity of holder of power of attorney of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, vide power of attorney dated 17.12.1998, executed attorney in favour of Padam Prakash son of Raghunandan, as a holder of general power of attorney in respect of disputed property.

6. The petitioners contested the matter, denied any valid attorney in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and any relationship of landlord and tenant with them, through written statement dated 9.12.1999. It is also said that there was no compliance of Rule 17 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1972”). The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 did not adduce any evidence either by filing their own affidavits or otherwise and instead an affidavit was filed by Padam Prakash, father of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, stating that he is the holder of power of attorney executed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and that a registered agreement to sell dated 10.3.1999 has been executed in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and that the applicants are financially strong having financial capacity to bear expenses to be incurred in property demolition and reconstruction etc. He filed income tax returns and bank accounts of himself to show sound financial position of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

7. The Small Cause Court, Meerut vide judgment dated 22.2.2002 allowed the application, filed u