JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Pursuant to order of date passed by Review Application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. 2. Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents though the case has been called in revised. 3. It is contended that in the application preferred by respondents under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), the specific case pleaded by petitioner in his written statement was that there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and applicants-respondents and no evidence was adduced by applicants-respondents on this issue and Courts below have also not considered this aspect at all and just assuming that defendant-petitioner was not able to show that he was the owner of premises in dispute, the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act, 1972 has been allowed without deciding the question, whether there existed relationship of tenant and landlord between applicants and defendant or not. Therefore the impugned proceedings and the impugned orders are patently illegal and without jurisdiction since the relationship of landlord and tenant is the condition precedent to attract Section 21 (1) (a) of Act, 1972. Reliance is placed on Sukha Vs. 5th Additional District Judge Aligarh and others 1989 (2) AWC 772 . 4. I have perused the impugned judgments. In the written statement filed by petitioner, it was specifically pleaded that he was not tenant in the accommodation in question. Prescribed Authority has not at all discussed this question as to whether there was any evidence to show that petitioner was tenant in the accommodation in question. He has considered the question as to whether petitioner was owner of property in dispute or not and it has been said that petitioner failed to prove that he is owner of property in dispute and thereby had proceeded to hold that petitioner is a tenant. 5. When the relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed seriously, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to decide this question first, since it is a jurisdictional question and only thereafter application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act, 1972 could have been decided on merits, which has not been done by both the Courts below. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot sustain. 6. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot sustain. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 25.9.1999 and 31.7.2007 are hereby quashed. 7. Matter is remanded to Prescribed Authority to consider first whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicants and petitioner and in case such question is answered in favour of applicants, only thereafter it shall proceed further.