JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - This petition relates to the accommodation on the first floor of house No. 67 Mavaiya Ganeshganj, Lucknow. Opposite party No. 3 filed an application for allotment of the said accommodation. The landlord on the other hand disputed that the accommodation had fallen vacant and also prayed that as it was in a dilapidated condition, it would require demolition and re-construction, hence it should be released to him. The Inspector in his report, dated 17th December, 1974 had pointed out that the accommodation in question was occupied by Budh Ram Agarwal as tenant who had shifted to his own house in Mohalla Sheopuri. The vacancy was, therefore, ordered to be notified on 23rd November, 1974. The landlord filed an objection on 30th December, 1974 contending that the whole house was in the tenancy of Gopi Krishna Agarwal and had not been vacated, hence it was not available for allotment. He also pointed out that the back portion of the said house was in a very rickety condition and, therefore, he wanted it to be demolished and re-constructed for which he asserted to have sufficient means at his disposal. The opposite party No. 3 contended that Gopi Krishna Agarwal had never lived in the said house and was not its tenant and that one Mahesh Dutt Misra was occupying the ground floor accommodation. Certain evidence was sought to be adduced before the Prescribed Authority with respect to the condition of the building on the first floor. According to the report of Sri Krimani, a retired Executive Engineer filed by the present opposite party No. 3 the condition of the said accommodation was satisfactory and it merely needed repairs. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the landlord for release of the said accommodation and allotted the same to the opposite party No. 3. Aggrieved, the landlord filed two revision petitions in the Court of District Judge, Lucknow. The revision petition No. 338 of 1976 was directed against the order of allotment while revision petition No. 339 of 1976 was filed against the order of rejection of release application. Both these revision petitions were decided by the judgment by the learned District Judge. Aggrieved, the landlord filed two revision petitions in the Court of District Judge, Lucknow. The revision petition No. 338 of 1976 was directed against the order of allotment while revision petition No. 339 of 1976 was filed against the order of rejection of release application. Both these revision petitions were decided by the judgment by the learned District Judge. While dismissing both the revision petitions the learned District Judge modified the order of the ADM (Civil Supplies) to the extent that the two dilapidated rooms at the back with the open roof in their front shall stand released in favour of the landlord and the allotment order shall govern only the remaining part of the first floor including the kitchen on the back side. During the pendency of the revision petition the landlord had died and his heirs were brought on the record. They have now filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the order of the learned District Judge as also the order of allotment of the said accommodation in favour of the opposite party No. 3 and the order wherby the release application was rejected. The petition has been opposed and a counter affidavit has been filed. Rejoinder affidavit was filed thereafter and the supplementary affidavit was also filed including thereto a copy of the Inspection note of the learned District Judge, dated 4th July, 1978. It seems that the learned District Judge had inspected the house in question in the presence of the Counsel for the parties and had made a note of his inspection, dated 4th July, 1978. 2. The learned District Judge has held that as no plan as required by Rule 17(iii) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 had been got prepared by the landlord conforming to the building regulations, one of the conditions for the release Under Rule 17 had not been fulfilled, hence the release of the back portion on that ground could not be considered. The learned District Judge then proceeded to observe: However, in view of the concession on behalf of the allottee earlier mentioned, the two dilapidated rooms with the roof in front and appurtenant right of access through the common stair case, should be released in favour of the landlord. The learned District Judge then proceeded to observe: However, in view of the concession on behalf of the allottee earlier mentioned, the two dilapidated rooms with the roof in front and appurtenant right of access through the common stair case, should be released in favour of the landlord. It is because of this concession that the learned District Judge modified the order of the ADM (Civil Supplies). 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there was no sufficient opportunity available to the Petitioners to get a plan prepared and filed the same in the Court so as to comply with one of the requirements of Rule 17 and as the learned District Judge had himself found that the back portion was in a dilapidated condition and was very rickety, the release application had been wrongly rejected by him. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No 3 on the other hand submitted that the landlord had himself stated in his application for release that the back portion was in a bad condition which required demolition and, therefore, the question of releasing the entire accommodation on the first floor did not arise at all. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be appropriate to refer to Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 the District Magistrate may order release of the whole or any part of a building in favour of the landlord which has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 requires that no release Under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) shall be made unless the District Magistrate is satisfied that the building or any part thereof is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction. Para 3 of Rule 13 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules provides that where the application referred to in Sub-rule (1) is made on the ground that the building is required for demolition and new construction the procedure laid down in Rule 17 shall mutatis mutandis be followed. Para 3 of Rule 13 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules provides that where the application referred to in Sub-rule (1) is made on the ground that the building is required for demolition and new construction the procedure laid down in Rule 17 shall mutatis mutandis be followed. Now Rule 17 says that before allowing an application for release of a building u/s 21(1)(b) on the ground that it is required for purposes of demolition and new construction, the prescribed authority shall satisfy itself- (i) that the building requires demolition; (ii) that a proper estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction has been prepared; (iii) that a plan has been duly prepared and conforms to the bye-laws or regulations of the local authority or other statutory authority under any law in that behalf for the time being in force, and (iv) that the landlord has the financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction. 5. A conjoint reading of Section 16 and Rule 13(3) as also Rule 17 make it quite manifest that before an order of release contemplated by Clause(b) of Sub-section(1) of Section 16 can be passed the District Judge has to be satisfied- (i) that the building or any part thereof is in a dilapidated condition. (ii) that the building or any part thereof is required for purposes of demolition and new construction, and (iii) that the building requires demolition. 6. He has also to be satisfied that a proper estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction has been prepared, that a plan has been duly prepared conforming to the bye-laws or regulations of the local authority and that the landlord has the financial capacity to carry out the proposed demolition and new construction. In other words, a finding has to be reached that the building or a part, as the case may be, is in a dilapidated condition. Secondly, a finding should also be reached that the landlord requires the building for purposes of demolition and new construction. Thirdly, the condition of the building is such that it requires demolition. It is not the desire but the requirement of the landlord to have the building demolished and re- constructed. The need of the landlord must be established to have the building demolished and also to have a new construction thereon. Thirdly, the condition of the building is such that it requires demolition. It is not the desire but the requirement of the landlord to have the building demolished and re- constructed. The need of the landlord must be established to have the building demolished and also to have a new construction thereon. If he has only the requirement to demolish the building but not the requirement of having its re-construction, the condition would not be satisfied. The other basic requirement which goes to the root of the matter, is that the District Magistrate must be satisfied that the condition of the building is such that it requires demolition. There may be a building the condition of which may be such that it needed no immediate demolition and yet the landlord may be requiring that building for demolition and new construction so as to make profits out of it. There may also be a building which requires demolition and the landlord may also be requiring it for the purposes of demolishing and making a new construction in its place. The District Magistrate must, therefore, before issuing a release order record a finding that the condition of the building is such which requires demolition. Of course, he has to be satisfied in order to assess whether the requirement of the landlord is genuine or not that the landlord has got a proper estimate of expenditure prepared and that he has also got a plan duly prepared in conformity with the bye-laws and regulations of the local authority and that he has at his disposal enough money to carry out demolition and new construction. Clauses(ii),(iii) and (iv) of Rule l7 in my opinion refer to the genuineness of the need of the landlord to have the building or a part of it released for the purpose of demolition and re- construction but Clause (i) of Rule 17 is basic in the sense that the condition of the building should be such which requires its demolition. If the condition of the building is not such as to require demolition, release order for the purpose of demolition and new construction cannot be passed. In the view I have taken I find support from a decision of this Court in Pearey Lal v. II Additional District Judge Bijnor 1980 ARC 240. 7. If the condition of the building is not such as to require demolition, release order for the purpose of demolition and new construction cannot be passed. In the view I have taken I find support from a decision of this Court in Pearey Lal v. II Additional District Judge Bijnor 1980 ARC 240. 7. In the case in hand the learned District Judge while rejecting the revision petition of the landlord has no doubt observed that as the landlord has failed to substantiate that a plan had been duly prepared in conformity with the bye-laws and regulations of the local authority, Rule 17 had not been complied with. The release order can be passed with respect to a building or a part of the building if prescribed authority is satisfied that the building requires demolition. This condition is mandatory and a finding on it has got to be arrived at while disposing of the release application of the landlord If it is found that the condition of the building or a part thereof is not such which requires demolition, the application would not be maintainable. But if it is found that the condition of the building is such which requires demolition, the Court has to record a finding as to whether the landlord requires the building for purpose of demolition and new construction and then findings will have to be reached on the question as to whether a proper estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction has been prepared, whether a plan has been duly prepared which conforms to the bye-laws and the regulations of the local authority and the landlord has a financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction. The learned District Judge in his inspection note had observed that the side room's roof has partly collapsed while that of the longer room was dilapidated and rickety and some part has come down, which require to be replaced. Another room on the side is a longer one probably used as a kitchen and was dark. Its roofs were in tolerable shape. He refers to his report in his judgment but he has not recorded any finding as to whether the condition of the building or a part thereof was such which required the building or a part thereof to be demolished. So the finding on the basic issue is missing. Its roofs were in tolerable shape. He refers to his report in his judgment but he has not recorded any finding as to whether the condition of the building or a part thereof was such which required the building or a part thereof to be demolished. So the finding on the basic issue is missing. A finding on this issue would undoubtedly be a finding of fact to be recorded by appraisal of evidence which obviously cannot be done in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case has hence to go back to the revisional Court below. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 24th July, 1978 passed by the learned District Judge, Lucknow, the certified copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, is quashed. The learned District Judge is directed to hear the revision petition No. 338 of 1976 as also rent revision No. 339 of 1976 afresh and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law and also in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Since the matter has become sufficiently old, the learned District Judge is directed to decide the said revision petitions on merits after hearing the parties within three months. The parties may file certified copy of this order before the learned District Judge in order to enable him to proceed with the case.