By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 27.03.1990 and 10.05.1995(Annexure nos. 5 & 7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent nos. 2 & 3 respectively.

Heard Sri J.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 3.

Controversy involved in the present case relates to the House No. 43 situated at Shankarpuri Colony, Phool Bagh, P.S. Qaiserbagh, Lucknow, Late Sri Rahmat Ullah and Smt. Ummatunnisa (petitioner nos. 1 & 2) are owners/landlords and Respondent no. 1 i.e. Late Aziz Ahmad was tenant in the said House on monthly rent of Rs.18/- per month.

On 8th May, 1986, petitioner moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to Act no. 13 of 1972), P.A. Case no. 33 of 1986 registered before the respondent no. 2. In the release application inter alia it was pleaded by the landlord-petitioners that the House in question under the tenancy of the respondent no. 1 is a single storey House consisting two Rooms with other facilities. Further, it was pleaded in the release application that they are presently living in House no. 211 Shankarpuri Colony, Phool Bagh, P.S. Qaiserbagh, Lucknow alongwith their family, the detail of family members is as under :-

(I) Applicant no. 1 (II)Applicant no. 2. (III) Sri Inayat Ullah(son) aged 25 years. (IV) Smt. Ainul Nisan wife of Inayat Ullah (V) Ishrat Jahan(daughter) aged 18 years. (VI) M. Ikram Ullah(son) aged about 14 years (VII) M. Mushtafa(son) aged about 14 years (VIII) Hidayat Ullah (son of Inayat Ullah).

So, the accommodation in the said house (no. 211 Phool Bagh) which consists of only two rooms (8' X 10' each) and one store room, and small court yard which is too short for the requirements of the applicants and his family. The eldest son of the applicant is married and needs privacy which is not possible in this house. There is no place for the study of the children, who are studying in various classes. Also there is no space to receive and entertain guests who visit the applicant from time to time. The wife of the applicant no. 1(Applicant no. 2) is the patient of high blood pressure and fells ill frequently. The congested atmosphere of the house and the climbing of the stairs is bad for her health, as such the need of the applicants for release of the House in question is bonafide in comparison to the need of the tenant-respondent no. 1.

Tenant-respondent no. 1 filed written statement and the need as set up by the landlord-petitioners is denied and it is further submitted that the House in which the petitioner-landlord resides is a four storied building out of which three stories are duly built up having one room measuring 15X20 Sq. ft. on each and every storey with Angan on each storey. So, there are three big room in the building with three Angan with amenities like toilet, bathroom etc. and there is also a stair which goes to the third storey of the building and there is an open accommodation also which can be utilized by them and only one son of Ikramullah is studying so the landlords have sufficient accommodation with them. Hence, it is totally wrong that the applicants/landlords have two rooms only, they have concealed one room and 3 Angans, toilet on both stories and kitchen portions.

Further, the tenant/respondent has set up his need in paragraph 4 of the written statement stating therein that the applicant (tenant) has got two sons and a daughter. The daughter is of marriageable age and her marriage has been settled and she is likely to be married in near future. The names of the sons of the applicants are Inayatullah and Ikramullah.

After exchange of the affidavits between the parties, the prescribed authority issued a Commission (Advocate Commissioner) who submit his report on 25.04.1988 (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition) to which landlord/petiti