JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner is the tenant of shop no. 174, Sarafa Bazar, Jhansi. 2. The opposite party no. 1 filed an application for release under section 21 (l)'(b) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition and it required demolition and new construction. The building is said to have been constructed about hundred years back. It was built of Kakaiya bricks. Before filing of the present release application the tenant himself had moved an application under section 28 of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and needed repairs. The requirement of Rule 17 have also been complied with by the landlord. The said application was contested by the petitioner stating that the shop was not in a dilapidated condition. There is no apprehension of its falling down. He is carrying on his business. The application is not bonafide. In case of release, greater hardship would be caused to this petitioner. 3. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the said application holding that the building was not in a dilapidated condition but the Appellate Authority took a contrary view and allowed the appeal of the landlord against which the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri S. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the appeal could not have been allowed inasmuch as Rule 17 has not been complied with. According to him the plan which has been submitted by the landlord had not been sanctioned by the local authority. 5. In support of his case the landlord had filed an affidavit of Sri Ajai Bhargava who is an Engineer and Architect of about 25 years experience. He has prepared the plan. In paragraph 4 of his affidavit he has clearly stated that the said plan was in conformity with the regulations of bye laws of the local authority. He further stated in paragraph 2 of his affidavit that the said report was prepared after inspecting the premises. His report paper no. 24/A/.1 also forms part of the record which makes a specific mention that the shop was in a bad condition. He further stated in paragraph 2 of his affidavit that the said report was prepared after inspecting the premises. His report paper no. 24/A/.1 also forms part of the record which makes a specific mention that the shop was in a bad condition. The correctness of the report has not been challenged by the petitioner in this Court. 6. An equally important evidence which was given due importance by the appellate authority is the application dated 18-7-1985. The petitioner himself has moved this application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (City Magistrate), Jhansi that the shop in question has become extremely old and may fall down at any time. It was also mentioned that inspite of his repeated requests, the landlord is not paying due attention for the repairs and the shop in question may fall any time and his property would be damaged. Even the life of the public was said to be in danger on account of collapse of the shop. Thus admittedly the petitioner has filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 18-7-1985 that the building is in the danger of being fallen down. The present application under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act has been field by the landlord on 10-4-1986. In view of the admission made by the tenant himself, the present application cannot be said to be malafide 7. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act has not been complied with, is also devoid of force inasmuch as the said rule does not contemplate that the plan should have been sanctioned by the local authority. For ready reference, Rule 17 is quoted below : "17. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act has not been complied with, is also devoid of force inasmuch as the said rule does not contemplate that the plan should have been sanctioned by the local authority. For ready reference, Rule 17 is quoted below : "17. Application for release on the ground of demolition and new constructions.- (1) Before allowing an application for release of building under section 21 (1) (b) on the ground that it is required for purposes of demolition arid 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." 8. It only provides that the plan has been duly prepared and conforms to the bye-laws or regulations of the local authority or other statutory authority. For this the affidavit and report of Sri Ajai Bhargava gives support to the case of the landlord. The appellate authority has also considered the evidence led by the petitioner but after discussing the same has disbelieved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this Court reported in 1984 (2) ARC 306 Binda Prasad v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Faizabad. The said authority has not decided this question that the plan should have been confirmed and only then it could be held that the provisions of Rule 17 have been complied with. 9. Another case cited by him is reported in 1982 (1) ARC 124 Ram Autar v. II Additional District Judge, Moradabad. The said authority has not decided this question that the plan should have been confirmed and only then it could be held that the provisions of Rule 17 have been complied with. 9. Another case cited by him is reported in 1982 (1) ARC 124 Ram Autar v. II Additional District Judge, Moradabad. In that case it was held- "The third submission which was made by the petitioner was that clause (3) of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act made" it incumbent on the Prescribed Authority and for the same reason on the appellate authority to satisfy itself that the plan which had been prepared conformed to the bye-laws or the regulations of the local authority or other statutory authority under any law in that behalf for the time being in force. The Prescribed Authority seems to have been of the view that since the plan had been sanctioned by the appropriate local authority it was not necessary for him to go into that question. The respondent no. 1 does not appear to have considered this question at all even though according to the petitioner it was pressed before him. The impugned order cannot be sustained on this ground also." 10. As a matter of fact, the proposition laid down in that case goes against the petitioner's contention. According to the learned Judge the courts are bound to consider whether the plan prepared was in conformity with the bye-laws or the regulations of the local authority or not. Even if the plan was sanctioned, the court should consider the same. Mere sanctioning of the plan will not debar the court from examining the requirement of Rule 17 (3) that the plan was in accordance with the bye-laws. In the instant case the appellate authority has considered this question and held that the plan submitted by the landlord was in accordance with the bye-laws. Nothing has been pointed out in the objection or in the writ petition to say that it was not so. The petitioner has only raised an objection without any factual foundation. While sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court is only exercising supervisory power and not the appellate one. Nothing has been pointed out in the objection or in the writ petition to say that it was not so. The petitioner has only raised an objection without any factual foundation. While sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court is only exercising supervisory power and not the appellate one. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases reported in AIR 1978 SC 29 , Muni Lal v. Prescribed Authority and AIR 1975 SC 1297 , Babhutmal Raichand Os wal V- Laxmibai R. Trate. This Court has only to see whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record. After giving my due and anxious consideration to the matter, I come to the conclusion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the appellate authority. 11. The writ petition has no merits. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.