JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition filed against the decision of the VIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 18-12-1986 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. At the very out set it may be mentioned that the contesting respondent accepted the notice and the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits. The writ petition is thus being decided finally in accordance with Rules of the Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the appellate judgment dated 18-12-1986 on the ground that it had not taken into consideration the additional evidence which had been filed by the petitioner at the appellate stage. The precise argument which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the agreement to sell, which had been executed by the landlord in respect of the property in dispute clearly disclosed the intention of the landlord not to demolish and reconstruct the property as required by Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On the other hand, it disclosed that the landlord wanted to sell the property in order to earn good money. On the basis of the facts evidenced from the agreement to sell it has been straneously urged that the application of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (b) ought to have been rejected. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, urged that the agreement to sell was for a very short duration and a bare perusal of the agreement to sell would itself show that now no sale deed can be executed in pursuance of that agreement. It has also been argued that there were circumstances under which the agreement to sell was executed by the landlord. 5. A bare perusal of the appellate judgment would show that the aforesaid additional evidence which had been filed by the tenant-petitioner had not at all been taken into consideration while deciding the case. In the writ petition it has been averred that the petitioner filed the aforesaid additional evidence for the purposes of negativing the case which had been taken by the land-lord. In the writ petition it has been averred that the petitioner filed the aforesaid additional evidence for the purposes of negativing the case which had been taken by the land-lord. In my opinion, the additional evidence which had been filed by the petitioner was a relevant piece of evidence which had a bearing on the question as to whether the landlord required the premises for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction. It is being made clear that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the case and the case is being sent back to the lower appellate court for deciding the question as to whether in view of the execution of the agreement to sell it could be held that the land-lord had no intention of demolition and reconstructing the property in dispute. On this question the parties will be allowed to lead fresh evidence which they may like before the Appellate Court and the appellate court would adjudicate on this question alone after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. It is being made clear that the findings recorded by the appellate court on all other questions are confirmed and will not be open to challenge. In case the appellate court after adjudication on the point comes to the conclusion that despite the agreement to sell the landlord had intention to demolish and reconstruct the property in dispute, the landlord's application under Section 21 (1) (b) would be liable to be allowed. 6. For the reasons stated above the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the lower application court dated 18-12-1986 is quashed to the extent indicated above. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. 7. Before parties it may be stated that the case is pending since the year 1978. The counsel for the parties have taken notice that they will appear before the lower appellate court on 25th February 1987 and will file a certified copy of the judgment before him. The lower appellate court will thereafter the appeal and will try to dispose of the appeal within a period of from the date of filing a certified copy of the judgment given to Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 3 days.