JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - The landlord-respondent No. 1 has sought release of part of the building under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being in dilapidated condition and requiring demolition and reconstruction. 2. The petitioner who is tenant of three rooms of southern portion of House No. K-63/43, Bhut Bhaire, Nakhas, Varanasi, is occupying the same since before 1974. The house in dispute was not maintained and no proper repairs was carried out with the result the same is in dilapidated condition and likely to demolish. According to the respondent No. 1, the tenant is using the accommodation for shop and godown and has got a big building in the neighbourhood which is used as a residential house. The respondent No. 1 has very scarce accommodation for the family which consists of four sons and four daughters, out of which two are married. The respondent No. 1 has also sufficient financial means to reconstruct the building and the plan in conformity with the regulations of the bye-laws has also been obtained after approval. The case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 has been making efforts since 1974 to evict the tenant and having failed in his attempt, the present device has been created to obtain possession of the building. The building is in good condition and it only requires repairs and proper maintenance. The tenant is using the disputed accommodation for his timber business and the shop has earned goodwill. 3. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application of the landlord and held that the respondent No. 1 does not need the disputed accommodation for his personal use and the accommodation is not in such bad shape so as to require, demolition and reconstruction. Although the plaster of the walls has been damaged and at some places there are cracks but for that reason the building can not be treated to be in such bad shape which may require demolition and reconstruction. The Prescribed Authority strongly relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner which indicated that in case proper repairs are conducted, the accommodation would not require demolition and reconstruction. 4. The learned IXth Additional District Judge has allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1 and has ordered for the demolition of the building by order dated 9.12.1988 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. 4. The learned IXth Additional District Judge has allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1 and has ordered for the demolition of the building by order dated 9.12.1988 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the petitioner is a very old tenant and at present using the disputed accommodation as his shop for timber business and has earned goodwill. The landlord in order to raise the rent had earlier initiated proceedings for eviction by filing suit No. 225 of 1974 which has been finally dismissed by this Court by order dated 9.9.1983 in writ petition No. 14097 of 198. In this litigation, it has also been held that the accommodation is not in dilapidated condition. The landlord has already constructed sufficient accommodation on the northern portion and he is not in any need of the southern portion in occupation of the petitioner. It has been alleged that the landlord has not been under-taking repairs and for this reason, the building is not in good shape. The petitioner has already initiated proceedings for repairs which are pending. The landlord is deliberately trying to bring the building to a bad shape so that it may demolish. The learned counsel further alleged that the report of the Advocate Commissioner (Paper 63-C) dated 8.2.1986 very clearly indicates that there are little cracks at one or two places in the roof where the water leaks but the building is in good condition which only requires proper repairs and maintenance. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Judge has accepted this report and has recorded a finding that the building after necessary repairs can be used. However, the report of the Engineer filed in support of the case of respondent No. 1 (Paper No. 39-C) has been accepted and on that basis the building was held to be in dilapidated condition which requires demolition. 6. I have carefully seen the material on record and the reports submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and the expert Engineer. In my opinion, the report of the Advocate Commissioner is more convincing and appears to be more correct. Even the learned Judge has not rejected this report. On the other hand, he has held that although the condition of the building is not very good, but after repairs it can be set right. In my opinion, the report of the Advocate Commissioner is more convincing and appears to be more correct. Even the learned Judge has not rejected this report. On the other hand, he has held that although the condition of the building is not very good, but after repairs it can be set right. Having recorded this finding, on the basis of the aforesaid report, there was no material on the basis of which it could be held that the condition of building was such that it was likely to demolish and required reconstruction. Both the findings in the order cannot be reconciled. It appears that the building is old and in bad condition and dilapidated so as to require demolition and reconstruction. Considering the background of the case and the indifferent attitude of the landlord towards maintenance of the building, there is every likelihood of the building not being in good shape. The landlord himself has admitted that he has not done any repairs for the last 10 years. The tenant was also using the accommodation to be kept in very good condition and for all these reasons, the upkeep of the building was not done properly but the building for these reasons would not require demolition. 7. However, to ascertain the latest and correct condition of the building, it directed the Appellate Authority to inspect the premises and then decide the case after considering the material on record. 8. The petition succeeds. The order dated 9.12.1988 is quashed. The case is remanded to the Appellate Authority with a direction to inspect the premises for deciding the case fresh expeditiously on the basis of the observation made above. There shall be no order as to costs.