JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This tenants' writ petition is directed against an order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority, under Section 21(1)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short ‘the Act’) that has been affirmed in appeal.

2. An application for release was moved by Noor Mohammad, the sole respondent to this writ petition, under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, seeking release of House No. 10/254-J, Heeraman Kaa Purwa, Kanpur Nagar, admeasuring 80 square yards, details of which are mentioned in Schedule A at the foot of the release application. It was registered on the file of the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar as Rent Case No. 14 of 2013.

3. Noor Mohammad claimed that he is the owner of the aforesaid premises. The premises were said to be 100 years old with an arched roof and in a dilapidated condition. The back portion on the eastern side had already fallen down. The house is constructed on a plot of land in two equal parts. The northern half has two rooms, a kitchen and a courtyard, which is residential and in Noor Mohammad's occupation. The remainder half part of the premises on the southern side has three arched roof rooms, oriented from west to east, where after there is a courtyard, another room and a gallery. However, the eastern room of this part was dilapidated and collapsed quite a long time ago. In its place, Mohd. Ahmad (since deceased), whose heirs and LRs are the petitioners here, constructed a tin-shed worked room and also enclosed a part of the courtyard with a tin-shed, giving it the shape of a room, converting it illegally.

4. It is this part of Noor Mohammad's house, which is disputed and shown in the map accompanying the application by letters A B C D and fully described at the foot of the application in Schedule B. Mohd. Ahmad is a tenant in the part of the house shown in Schedule B at the foot of the release application at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, apart from water and sewerage tax. Pending the application for release before the Prescribed Authority, Mohd. Ahmad passed away on 15.08.2014 and his heirs and LRs. who are the writ petitioners here, to wit, Mohd. Akram, Mohd. Arshad and Mohd. Niyaz, all sons of the late Mohd. Ahmad were substituted as opposite parties nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3. The three heirs and LRs. of Mohd. Ahmad shall hereinafter be referred to as the tenants, unless the context requires individual reference. Noor Mohammad shall hereinafter be called the landlord.

5. It is the landlord's case further in the release application that he has a family comprising 23 members, all of whom reside with him in the half portion of the house shown in Schedule A, that is in his occupation, suffering great inconvenience. The landlord says that on account of shortage of space, his family members have to live in subhuman conditions. One of his sons, Akil Ahmad could not be married because of shortage of space and a younger son, who has married himself, is staying in a rented accommodation in House No. 90/254-J at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month.

6. The tenants contested the application by filing a written statement saying that the demised premises no doubt have an arched roof, but the premises are not dilapidated. The demised premises comprise two rooms, a courtyard and a tin-shed. The demised premises, in the condition it exists, has been that way for the past 50 years. It is then said that Ali Ahmad does not stay with his father. He stays along with his wife and children at Chunniganj. Likewise, Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Akil stay elsewhere and have their families. It is the tenants' case that Shakil Ahmad and Wali Ahmad do not get along with the landlord and for the said reason, stay away. The landlord does not need any residential accommodation.

7. The plot of land he has got vacated from an old tenant, Mohd. Sharif, has three rooms, making it a total o