Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) The tenant-petitioners have filed this writ petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.02.2016 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge P.C. Act-II Lucknow, in Rent Appeal No.48 of 2014 and the judgment and order dated 08.05.2014 passed by Prescribed Authority/II-Additional Judge Small Causes, Lucknow in P.A.Case No.50 of 2001.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ram Karan Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Madhur Kant Srivastava learned counsel for private respondent no.3 and also perused the record.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent no.3, claiming himself to be the owner of house no.710 situated at Azad Mohal, Sadar Bazar Cant., Lucknow, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioners. It was said that the house No.398, in which the private respondent was residing, was owned by one Murli Dhar Gupta, the grand father of the private respondent who had four sons. After the death of Murli Dhar Gupta, the house in dispute was divided into four parts and the partition wall was raised to divide the respective shares of all the aforesaid house. The father of the private respondent no.3 enjoyed the right of one fourth portion of the house as absolute owner thereof till his life time and after his death in the year 1983, the private respondent and his brother Virendra Nath Gupta inherited half share each in the said one fourth of their father. They further divided their half share by means of mutual family settlement and the portion in the tenancy of the petitioners was given to the private respondent. The area of the share of the private respondent is only 250 Sq.ft.;