ORDER Mahavir Singh, J. - The petitioners were tenants of a building No. 32-A Karan pur Bazar, district Dehradun at a monthly rent of Rs. 8.75 p. for about 25 years. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Darshani Devi is the landlady of that house. She moved an application on 17-1-1975 before the Prescribed Authority for eviction of the petitioners under section 21(2 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 alleging that the building is question was in a dilapidated condition and required reconstruction. 2. The petitioners opposed that application alleging that the building was in good condition and did not require any reconstruction. They also alleged that their need was greater than that of respondent landlady. Both parties filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions. The petitioners filed affidavits of two architects namely Sri. Virendra Prakash Kaushik, and Sri. N.L. Verma vide annexures No. 1 and 2 respectively. According to them the building was in good condition. The landlady respondent No. 3 also filed an affidavit of one architects Sri Arvindra Kumar. The application of petitioners for local inspection was, however, refused. 3. The Prescribed Authority respondent No. 2 accepted the case of the landlady that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required construction. Therefore, he allowed the application of the landlady. 4. The petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge, Dehradun who also affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority. He also negatived the contention of the petitioner that without comparing the needs of both sides, the application of landlady should not have been allowed. In order, however, to ensure that the landlady would get the building demolished, the appellate authority imposed certain conditions on the landlady and with that modification, he dismissed the appeal. 5. The petitioners have filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the findings of the Prescribed Authority and District Judge were legally defectives. They were also wrong in not allowing the application of the petitioners for a local inspection to verify the reports of the respective architects filed by both sides. Secondly it was contended that the court below was wrong in not comparing the needs of the petitioners and the landlady. 6. So far as the second contention is concerned, it has clearly no force. Secondly it was contended that the court below was wrong in not comparing the needs of the petitioners and the landlady. 6. So far as the second contention is concerned, it has clearly no force. For an application for eviction of a tenant made on the ground specified in sub-clause (b) of section 21(1) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. the 4th proviso which requires the authorities to compare the needs of both sides does not apply. That applies only when the application is made under Clause (a) of Section 21(1). 7. As regards the first contention, that too has no force. Both the Prescribed Authority as well as the District Judge have held that the building being dilapidated required reconstruction. It was a finding of fact based upon the reports of architects filed by both sides. It is contended that reports of the petitioner's architects were not properly appreciated and that of respondent's architect was given undue importance. In other words he wants reappraisal of evidence. This is, however, not open in a writ petition. 8. It was next contended that the lower authorities were wrong in rejecting application for local inspection for verification and checking the reports of the architects. But shat is also not question of violation of any statutory rule of procedure. It was a matter within the discretion of the authorities concerned and that also is not open to challenge in a writ petition. 9. It was also contended that the lower court has not satisfied itself about requirements of the rule 17. This point was, however, not raised before the learned District Judge and so it is not open to raise it in this writ petition. 10. Thus the writ petition has no force and it is dismissed with costs.