JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - An owner of a building moved an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, to the effect, that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. 2. The learned Second Additional District Judge, Budaun in his decision of 30th March 1987 was satisfied that the release sought by the landlord for the purpose set out was bona fide and genuine and allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (b) aforesaid, in effect, confirming the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 4th September, 1981. 3. It may be set on record at this stage that the matter relating to the same premises and between the same parties was before this Court in an earlier writ petition No. 4190 of 1982 Hans Raj Sharma v. 1st Additional District Judge, Budaun and this decision is otherwise reported in 1986 Allahabad Civil Journal 482 and yet another Journal 1986 U.P. Rent Control Cases 390 ; 1986 (2) ARC 17. The order of the learned District Judge of 30 March 1987 is upon an order of remand with certain directions, by this Court. 4. The building in question had been inspected by a Commission. When the matter was pending before the Prescribed Authority, the Commissioner, submitted his report. This report bears out that the bricks in the building are crumbing; the walls have cracked ; there is dampness and salinity on the walls; the plaster in peeling ; the balcony is damaged and broken. From the Commissioner's report it is apparent that the building is not fit for habitation. The report of the Commissioner was accepted by the two courts below and on the basis of the facts mentioned in it the application of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (b) was granted. 5. The two courts were conscious of the circumstances that prior to allowing the application under Section 21(1) (b) the four criteria contained in Rule 17 ought to be satisfied. The two courts below were satisfied that the four criteria enumerated in Rule 17 have indeed been satisfied. 6. Thus, this court does not find any illegality in the order of the two courts below to warrant interference under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.