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