JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This is landlords' petition directed against rejection of their applications for release filed under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). The Petitioners have lost before both the authorities below. 2. Ram Chandra Sinha, Petitioner No. 1 and Badri Narain Srivastava, Petitioner No. 2 filed the application for release on the basis that they had become joint owners of the property in dispute by virtue of the sale deed executed in there favour on 18th May, 1972. It was pleaded that Petitioner No. 2 was serving in the Army and he had occasionally to be posted at non-family stations and, therefore, his children were to stay with Ram Chandra Sinha, Petitioner No. 1 who is his brother-in-law. It was pointed out that the family of Petitioner No. 2 comprised of himself, his three minor children aged about between 9 to 13 years, dependent younger brothers studying in B.A. II year, dependent father, dependent mother another dependent younger brother and three younger sisters. In this manner the family of Petitioner No. 2 was stated to be comprising of eleven members out of which three were minors at the time of moving the application. In respect of Petitioner No. 1 it was stated that his family comprised of himself, his wife, his widowed mother, a son Ved Prakash studying in Class IV, his dependent brother, brother's wife and one son. In this manner it was indicated that the family of the Petitioner No. 1 comprised of five adults and two children. For this large family of the two Petitioners, the Petitioners disclosed that the accommodation available to them comprised of only one living room. On the facts herein before stated the Petitioner's case was that the tenements occupied by the various opposite parties were bonafide required for their personal use. It was also stated in the application that the tenements occupied by the opposite parties were in dilapidated condition and required demolition. Thus the release was sought under Clause (a) as well as under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21. 3. The six tenants against whom six separate applications had been filed opposed the applications. They denied that Badri Nath Srivastava had any interest in the property in dispute. Thus the release was sought under Clause (a) as well as under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21. 3. The six tenants against whom six separate applications had been filed opposed the applications. They denied that Badri Nath Srivastava had any interest in the property in dispute. They also denied that the tenements were in dilapidated condition. 4. In support of their plea that the tenements were in dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction, the landlords apart from filing their affidavits, filed the report of an Assistant Engineer. They also placed on record a plan of the building proposed to be constructed after demolition of the existing structure. An assessment of the cost that would be incurred in demolition and reconstruction also appears to have been filed. From the side of the tenants, opposite parties, no report of an expert was filed. They filed their own affidavits denying that the tenements were in dilapidated condition. 5. The Prescribed Authority while negativing the Petitioners' claim under Clause (b) held that the requirement of Rule 17 had not been complied with by the Petitioners inasmuch as they had not placed on record the sanctioned plan of the proposed building. With regard to the report submitted by the Assistant Engineer the Prescribed Authority observed that it did not mention that the building in question has reached a stage where it requires demolition. The learned District Judge, while refusing to upset the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority, observed that the point was not seriously argued. He also negatived the Petitioners case on the ground that approved plan of the Mahapalika had not been filed. He also observed that although a plan assessment prepared by Sri. S.P. Srivastava, Assistant Engineer, had been placed on record, no affidavit by him had been filed. After noticing these facts he observed that he was not satisfied that the conditions of Rule 17 had been complied with. 6. In my opinion the two authorities below have committed manifest error in recording their findings on the question of dilapidated nature of the building. It is true that no affidavit had been filed by the Assistant Engineer who prepared plan of the proposed building and the estimate of cost of demolition and reconstruction but that was not sufficient to reject the report of the Assistant Engineer. It is true that no affidavit had been filed by the Assistant Engineer who prepared plan of the proposed building and the estimate of cost of demolition and reconstruction but that was not sufficient to reject the report of the Assistant Engineer. The Prescribed Authority is not a court although in proceedings u/s 21 it exercises powers of the Civil Court in specified matters. This is so by virtue of Section 34 read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act. Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that the Act applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including Court-martial but not to affidavits presented to any court or officer, nor to proceedings before any arbitrator. From this it is apparent that the strict rules of evidence prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. My attention was not drawn by the learned Counsel for the parties to any provision of the Act or the Rules whereby the Indian Evidence Act may have been applied to proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. In the circumstances the report of the Assistant Engineer could not be rejected merely on the basis that no affidavit had been filed by him in proof of his report. Neither the Prescribed Authority nor the learned District Judge has given any finding to the effect that the report was biased or was not worthy of reliance as it did not reflect the correct factual position. The report was a material document and its improper rejection vitiates the orders of the authorities below. It may be noticed that on behalf of the tenants neither a counter report was filed nor any prayer was made for local inspection of the property. 7. Rule 17, which has been found by the two authorities below not to have been complied with by the Petitioners, reads as follows: 17. It may be noticed that on behalf of the tenants neither a counter report was filed nor any prayer was made for local inspection of the property. 7. Rule 17, which has been found by the two authorities below not to have been complied with by the Petitioners, reads as follows: 17. Application for release on the ground of demolition and new construction (Sections 21(1)(b) and 34(8)-Before allowing an application for release of a building u/s 21(1)(b) on the ground that it is required for purposes of demolition and new construction, the Prescribed Authority shall satisfy itself- (i) that the building requires demolition; (ii) that the proper estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction has been prepared; (iii) that a plan has been duly prepared and conforms to the bye-laws or regulations of the local authority or other statutory authority under any law in that behalf for the time being in force; (iv) that the landlord has the financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction. From the above language it is apparent that before granting release under Clause (b) the Prescribed Authority has to satisfy itself on the facts enumerated in Clauses (i) to (iv) above. Clause (iii) requires the Prescribed Authority to be satisfied that a plan has been duly prepared and the same conforms to the bye-laws or regulations of local authority or other statutory authority under any law in that behalf for the time being in force. Under this clause the only requirement is that there should be a duly prepared plan for the building which is to be constructed after demolition of the existing building and this plan should conform to the bye-laws or the regulation of the local authority. A duly prepared plan had been placed on the record by the Petitioners. It was not the case of the opposite parties that the said plan did not conform to the bye-laws or the regulations of the local authority. There is no requirement under Rule 17 that a sanctioned plan must be placed on record. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the instance on filing the sanctioned plan contained in the orders of the two authorities below is not justified. 8. There is no requirement under Rule 17 that a sanctioned plan must be placed on record. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the instance on filing the sanctioned plan contained in the orders of the two authorities below is not justified. 8. In view of the above discussion the findings recorded by the two authorities below on the question of dilapidated nature of the building and on the question of compliance of Rule 17 cannot be sustained. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners assailed the findings on the question of bonafide requirement also. The two authorities below did not consider Badri Narain Srivastava to be co-landlord along with the Petitioner No. 1. The learned District Judge has observed that the plea of his ownership was set up in order to take advantage of explanation (iii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 21. It is not disputed that in the sale deed the name of Petitioner No. 2 Badri Narain Srivastava has not been mentioned as a vendee and the vendee is shown as Sri. Ram Chandra Sinha alone. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, however, pointed out that on behalf of the Petitioners it has been proved that an amount equivalent to exact one half of the total consideration was advanced by the Petitioner No. 2 to Petitioner No. 1 in order to purchase the property in dispute. Learned Counsel pointed out that this amount had been advanced through a Bank Draft and the amount was correct to the last naya paisa. According to the learned Counsel the payment of the amount to the last naya paisa falsified the opposite parties plea that the Petitioner No. 2 had no interest in the property in dispute and that he had made no contribution towards the sale consideration. It was further argued that apart from remittance of the part of the sale consideration by Petitioner No. 2 to the Petitioner No. 1, the Petitioners had placed on record a compromise decree which also declared the Petitioner No. 2 to be owner of the building in dispute with Petitioner No. 1 to the extent of one half. According to the learned Counsel this compromise decree could not be lightly brushed aside inasmuch as it was binding between Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2. According to the learned Counsel this compromise decree could not be lightly brushed aside inasmuch as it was binding between Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2. In view of the fact that the case will have to be remanded to the court below because of the flaw in the finding recorded in respect of dilapidated nature of the building, I do not propose to record any finding in respect of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the plea of bonafide requirement. It will be open to the Petitioners to press their plea once again before the court below. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 23-2-78 contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition passed by the learned District' Judge, Lucknow is hereby quashed. The learned Distt. Judge shall re-admit the appeal to its original number and decide the same in accordance with law taking into account the observations made hereinabove. It shall be open to either party to pray to the learned District Judge to make a local inspection, It will be open to the learned District Judge also to make the local inspection suo motu. Costs of this petition shall be easy.