JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - Premises No. 7/11, Aukland Road, Allahabad belongs to Respondent No. 3. She filed an app[c: lion under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the accommodation on the ground that the building in occupation of the Petitioner was in a dilapidated condition and required to be demolished and reconstructed. The application was contested by the Petitioner. He alleged in the written statement filed in reply to the application that the building was in a good condition and that the same was not required to be demolished. 2. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective versions. The Prescribed Authority found that the building as in a dilapidated condition and on this finding held that the same was required to be demolished. The Prescribed Authority accordingly granted the prayer made in the application filed by the Respondent No. 3 against which an appeal was filed by the Petitioner before the learned District Judge. The appeal has been dismissed. Hence the Writ Petition. 3. Before coming to merits it appears appropriate to find out the scope of section 21(1)( b) under which the application was filed, by the said Respondent. The said Prevision is as under : "that the building is in dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction." Arguments were addressed on the scope of the expression 'dilapidated', Sri S.P. Gupta, Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the use of the said expression in the clause indicates that the legislature desired on application for release to be granted only when the building is in a ruinous condition. In the alternative he suggested that even if the whole of the building is not in ruins a part of it must have fallen down. The word 'dilapidated has not been defined in the Act. We have, therefore, to go on the dictionary meaning of the said word as it can be presumed that the legislature has used it in the same sense. The dictionary meaning of this word is to fall into ruin decay or disrepair, broken down. It is the settled law that in selecting one out of the various meanings regard should be had to the context as it is the established rule that words used in an Act take their colour from the context. The dictionary meaning of this word is to fall into ruin decay or disrepair, broken down. It is the settled law that in selecting one out of the various meanings regard should be had to the context as it is the established rule that words used in an Act take their colour from the context. As observed by Prem H.A. Smith quoted in Allen's book law in the making 5th Edition page 452, "No word has an absolute meaning, and no words can he defined in vacuum or without reference to some context". Keeping this rule in mind it appears to me that for the application of this provision it is not necessary that the building either must be in a ruinous condition or fallen down. It is also not correct that it must either he unsafe or unfit for habitation. Even if a part of the building is in a damaged or dangerous condition and has fallen into the state of decay or disrepairs requiring reconstruction, the same may fulfil the requirements of the aforesaid clause. The word 'dilapidated' is not it word of art or science having a rigid meaning. 4. For the purpose of finding out whether a building is in a dilapidated condition one has to examine the facts and find Whether the building is in such a condition that it is required to be demolished. In determining this question a court would not be justified in considering the intention of the landlord. It should find out the real condition of the building and base its decision on it. 5. Now coming to the merits the application was filed by the Respondent on the ground that the quarter in occupation of the Petitioner was in a dilapidate' condition and that the same was required to be demolished. The application had been contested by the Petitioner on the ground that the premises in question was not dilapidated. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application finding that the building was dilapidated. In appeal this finding of the Prescribed Authority was affirmed. The appellate Court referred to certain circumstances and also the admissions made by the Petitioner in various proceedings and relying upon them hold that the building was in a dilapidated condition The ]earned counsel for the Petitioner challenged the finding of the District Judge on the ground that these admissions were not admissible. The appellate Court referred to certain circumstances and also the admissions made by the Petitioner in various proceedings and relying upon them hold that the building was in a dilapidated condition The ]earned counsel for the Petitioner challenged the finding of the District Judge on the ground that these admissions were not admissible. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is without substance. Some of these admission were contained in the letters which had been sent by the Petitioner to the contesting Respondent. Reading of these letters it can reasonably be concluded that according to the case of the petitioner the building was not in a good condition and required Demolition. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the District Judge wrongly relied upon these statements and letters of the Petitioner. Apart from the above the Respondent No. 3 had also given evidence of her own to the effect that the building was in a dilapidated condition and that the same required demolition. The learned District Judge has relied upon the same. The finding given by the Appellate Court on the question of dilapidated condition of the building is one of the fact. It is not possible to interfere with these proceedings. 6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the judgment of the appellate court is liable to be set aside as he did not consider the report of the Vakil Commissioner who had been appointed to inspect the building in question and to submit a report to the same . He urged that the said report would show that the building was not in a dilapidated condition. A copy of this report has been filed alongwith the writ petition. 1 have gone through the same. The report is not clear. It is not possible to reach at any conclusion on the basis of this report. I cannot, therefore, say that the judgment of the learned District Judge is vitiated only on account of the fact that he did not refer to the said report in his judgment furthermore as said by the Supreme Court in Babutmal v. Laxmi Bai, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1296. I cannot, therefore, say that the judgment of the learned District Judge is vitiated only on account of the fact that he did not refer to the said report in his judgment furthermore as said by the Supreme Court in Babutmal v. Laxmi Bai, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1296. the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact even on the ground that the District Court has misread a part of the evidence and ignored another part of it. Hence, simply because the Com- missioner's report was not considered by the District Judge is not by itself sufficient to set aside the judgment. 7. The last submission that the Respondent No. 3 failed to establish that she wanted to demolish the construction in possession of the petitioner and thereafter to reconstruct the same has also no substance. The learned counsel for the Petitioner had laid great emphasis on the endorsement made on the map which was submitted by the Respondent No. 3 to the Nagar Mahapalika for permission to make new construction. He urged that the endorsement made to the effect "Proposed plan for extension and alteration of bunglow on plot No. 4" shows that the respondent No. 3 did not want to demolish the building in occupation of the petitioner for the purpose of reconstruction. It is not possible to accede to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the endorsement made on his map is not conclusive. The question whether the Respondent No 3 desired to reconstruct the building after taking its possession from the petitioner had to do determined by taking into other evidence as well. After examination of evidence filed by the parties on the said issue the learned District Judge found that the Respondent No. 3 required the building for reconstruction. It may also be stated that the learned District Judge had also considered the above endorsement made on the map and thereafter arrived at the finding mentioned above. 8. In view of the above the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs payable by the petitioner to the Respondent No. 3. The petitioner will have three months' time to vacate the premises. The stay order is discharged.