The central legal point established in the judgment is the genuine requirement of the landlords for the tenanted accommodation and the sympathetic treatment of landlords under rent control legislation.

Heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for landlord-petitioners and Sri H.N.B. Sinha, learned counsel for tenant-respondents.

This writ petition arises out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by the seven landlords petitioners against tenants respondents No.3 to 6 on the ground of bona need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''U.P. Act No.13 of 1972') in the form of P.A. Case No.51 of 1987. The Prescribed Authority, Civil Judge, Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow allowed the release application through order dated 22.01.1990. Against the said judgment and order, tenants respondents filed appeal, number of which has not been mentioned in the certified copy as well as typed copy (Appeal must have been filed in 1990). The title is Prithvi Raj Bhargava and others Vs. Smt. Zareena and others. The appeal was allowed by A.D.J./Special Judge/E.C. Act, Lucknow on 23.05.1990. Order passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside and release application was dismissed. The said order of the appellate court has been challenged through this writ petition.

Accommodation in dispute is residential in nature situate at 90, Jagat Narain Road, Lucknow having an area of 14842.36 square feet (more than 1600 square yards). Constructed area is more than 700 square yards. It is having 14 rooms as per para-1 of the written arguments filed on behalf of petitioners. However, in the written arguments filed on behalf of opposite parties No.3 to 6, it is mentioned in para-14 that accommodation in dispute consists of ten rooms. Copy of release application is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The landlords petitioners contended that they were residing at House No.121, Ghaus Ganj Wajir Ganj, Lucknow. Need for each of the seven landlords applicants was separately pleaded. Release application was got amended and it was stated that applicant No.4, Iqbal Haider and applicant No.7, Ashfaq Haider were married during pendency of the release application. It was stated that the residential house of the applicants at Ghaus Ganj in which they were residing was double storied. On the first floor, there were four rooms, three small and one big and on the ground floor there were five small rooms of 8'/7', 6'/7', 10'/8' and 6'/10' and four store rooms of 6'/6' each. It was stated that at the time of filing of release application, the family consisted of 14 members.

As far as tenants are concerned, it was stated in the release application that house in dispute was allotted to their father, Late Sri B.R. Bhargawa long before when all the petitioners were minors. The building initially belonged to late Smt. Raziya Begum mother of the applicants. It was further stated that opposite parties were co-owners of a house at Pan Dariba, which they inherited from their father and which they were using for residential as well as commercial purposes.

It was also pleaded by the landlords that applicant No.5, Akhlaque Haider was an advocate and due to paucity of accommodation he was sharing his chamber with his brother in law at 34, Jagat Narain Road. Applicant No.5 filed his affidavit, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The lower appellate court placed maximum reliance upon the said affidavit.

The rent of the accommodation in dispute is Rs.187.50 per month. It must have been fixed at the time of allotment about 50 years before.

Along with the written arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has supplied a sketch map of the building in dispute and the chart of the market value (circle rates) as circulated by the Collector monthly rent of the accommodations on the road in question, i.e. Jagat Narain Road is shown to be Rs.220/- per square meter in the circle rate. On the said calculation, rent comes to about Rs.25,000/- per month. What insignificant ratio existing rent bears to this figure is not difficult to realise.

Lower appellate court held that the Prescribed Authority ha