JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2009, passed by the Prescribed Authority whereby the application moved by the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 2/1 to 2/5, Late Tahira Khatoon (hereinafter referred as landlord) under Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed ordering eviction of the tenants from the premises in question. 3. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 23.07.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faizabad, dismissing the appeal No. 38 of 2009 preferred by the petitioners against the order of learned Prescribed Authority dated 25.04.2009. 4. The dispute relates to building No. 3/1/87, new and old No. 56, situate in Mohalla Kandhari Bazar, Faizabad City. Late Tahira Khatoon filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for eviction of the tenants in the said premises stating therein, inter alia, that the premises in question has been inherited by her which is her ancestral property. The landlord also submitted in the said application that she has inherited the property from her brother Ziauddin on the basis of family settlement. It was also averred in the said application that in the northern portion of the house, she resides along with her family members and southern portion of the house was under tenancy of the father of Sri Vijay Krishna Srivastava and Sri Girish Chandra Srivastava, namely, late Shanker Dayal, who is predecessor in interest of the petitioners and after the death of Shanker Dayal, Vijay Krishan Srivastava has been residing and as such in terms of the provision of Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, he is the tenant. It was also stated in the said application that the applicant is an old aged lady of 72 years and along with her husband, Mahboob Alam, three sons and two daughters are residing with her. She also stated that besides her, there are 20 family members who are residing in the house. Application also disclosed that her son Khursheed is presently unemployed and besides him, two of her grand sons have also grown up and, therefore, the family members intend to do business to support their lives. 5. She also stated that besides her, there are 20 family members who are residing in the house. Application also disclosed that her son Khursheed is presently unemployed and besides him, two of her grand sons have also grown up and, therefore, the family members intend to do business to support their lives. 5. Apart from taking the plea available under Section 21(1)(a), the applicant was took a plea that building is in dilapidated condition and is required to be demolished to raise new construction. It was stated in that regard that the premises in question is very old and it has become inevitable to get the demolition and reconstruction done and for the said purpose the applicant had prepared a plan in terms of the bye-laws of the Development Authority concerned for which the applicant is in bona fide need of the premises in question. 6. The said application was contested by the tenants stating therein that the applicant is not the legal heir and the owner of the premises in question, as such, she cannot be said to have inherited the property. It was, however, stated in the written statement by the tenants that earlier the brother of the applicant late Ziauddin instituted a suit No. 9 of 1990 before the Judge, Small Causes for a decree of eviction and arrears of rent and damages for use of premises and said suit was initially dismissed on 29.02.1992, however, on revision petition preferred by late Ziauddin, the said suit was decreed by the revisional court by means of order dated 23.04.2004. It was also contended in the written statement that against the order dated 23.04.2004 whereby the suit for ejactment and arrears of rent and damages was decreed by the revisional court, a Writ Petition bearing No. 67 (R/C) of 2004 has been preferred which is pending before this Court and interim order is operating therein. In this background, it was contended by the tenants that once the interim order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 67(R/C) of 2004 is in subsistence, the applicant has moved this application as a device to frustrate the interim order passed by this Court and hence, the application moved under Sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(a) of the Act should not have been entertained. It was further stated in the written statement that the applicant has various other houses besides the house where the premises in question is situated and also that in the front portion of the house and in the ground floor, the applicant is running family restaurant in the name and style of “Dasterkhan”. In the written statement it was averred further that taking into account the comparative hardships, it would not be appropriate to allow the application moved by the applicant. 7. On the basis of pleadings available, the Prescribed Authority formulated the issues for consideration which are (1) As to whether the applicant was the owner of the premises in question on the basis of family settlement entered into between her and her brother, (2) Whether the applicant owned the other houses in the city of Faizabad, (3) Whether the applicant has bona fide need of the premises in question and as to whether the bona fide need of the applicant is more than that of the tenants and (4) As to whether the premises in question is in a dilapidated condition which warrants demolition and reconstruction. 8. Learned Prescribed Authority on the basis of evaluation of evidence led by both the parties and material available on record came to the conclusion that the applicant, late Tahira Khatoon is the owner of the premises in question. While passing the impugned, he had recorded the finding that there is no dispute between the parties that the premises in question is the ancestral property of the applicant and further that Ziauddin is the brother of the applicant, Tahira Khatoon. Learned Prescribed Authority considered the Yaddastnama and the affidavit filed by one Sri Saidurrahman to prove the said Yaddastnama and came to the conclusion that amongst various ancestral properties the applicant, Tahira Khatoon inherited only the house in question on the basis of family settlement. While coming to the said conclusion, the learned Prescribed Authority placed reliance upon the affidavit filed by her brother Zaiuddin and also by one witness Saidurrahman. Various other documentary evidences were also considered by the Prescribed Authority, who came to the definite conclusion that the applicant, Tahira Khatoon became the owner of the house in question on the basis of family settlement entered into in the year 1992. 9. Various other documentary evidences were also considered by the Prescribed Authority, who came to the definite conclusion that the applicant, Tahira Khatoon became the owner of the house in question on the basis of family settlement entered into in the year 1992. 9. In respect of the bona fide need, the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence available that the landlord is in bona fide need of the house in question. For arriving at the said conclusion, various factors including the fact that the applicant resides there along with her 20 family members, were taken into account. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the landlord had other houses in City of Faizabd including the house in Mohalla Bahadurganj was repelled by the learned Prescribed Authority as burden of proving said fact was not discharged by the tenants. 11. In respect of comparative hardship, the finding recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority is to the effect that there was no evidence on record which could suggest that the tenants made any effort to search for any other house or premises, hence, in these circumstances, the factor of comparative hardship weighed more in favour of the landlord. The submission made by landlord to the effect that the premises in question is in a dilapidated condition which warrants demolition and reconstruction was also taken into account and on the basis of various documentary evidences including the estimate presented by the landlord, the building plan prepared as per bye-laws of the local Development Authority and the affidavit filed by Sri Amit Prakash Srivastava, the building designer was taken into account. 12. The Prescribed Authority also relied upon the report submitted by the Amin Commissioner, according to which the house in question is quite old. 13. A perusal of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority clearly reveals that the same is based on appropriate consideration of the evidences and the appreciation thereof. 14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Amin Commissioner's report has wrongly been interpreted by the Prescribed Authority. The Amin Commissioner's report is on record of this case. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the report of the Amin Commissioner nowhere states that building is in a dilapidated condition, as such inference drawn in that regard by the Prescribed Authority is untenable. 15. The Amin Commissioner's report is on record of this case. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the report of the Amin Commissioner nowhere states that building is in a dilapidated condition, as such inference drawn in that regard by the Prescribed Authority is untenable. 15. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners merits rejection for the reason that apart from the Commissioner's report there are various other documentary evidences available on record which have been taken into consideration by the Prescribed Authority while arriving at the conclusion that the building is in a dilapidated condition which warrants demolition and reconstruction. Even Amin Commissioner's report clearly states that the cracks have appeared in the ceiling of the house and further, plaster also is not in good shape. As observed above, the Amin Commissioner's report is not the only document on the basis of which Prescribed Authority has based his conclusions in respect of the premises being in a dilapidated condition. Thus, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be rejected, which is hereby rejected. 16. The appellate court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the tenants against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. 17. The appellate court has reiterated findings of learned Prescribed Authority based on its own analysis that there exists bona fide need in favour of the landlord and further that if the entire matter is tested on the touch stone of the comparative hardships, it will be appropriate that the tenants be ordered to vacate the premises in question. 18. The matter at hand stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned courts below. A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate, in any manner, that the findings recorded therein are based on any irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. The impugned order also does not disclose that findings recorded are perverse, in any manner; rather they clearly are based on the evidence available on record. 19. In view of the discussions made and reasons given herein above, I do not find it a case which may warrant any interference by this Court in these proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. 20. 19. In view of the discussions made and reasons given herein above, I do not find it a case which may warrant any interference by this Court in these proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. 20. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners states that some time may be given to the petitioners to vacate the premises in question. The said prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel representing the respondents. He submits that in fact no person resides in the premises in question at present and the premises which is in possession of the petitioners is locked. 21. On the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is provided that petitioners shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondents within four months from today, that is to say, on or before 31.08.2016. 22. Any violation or disobedience of the order being passed today by this court will render the petitioners liable for contempt of this Court. 23. There will be no order as to costs.