JUDGMENT S. C. Mathur, J. - This is tenant's petition arising from proceedings for release under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. 13 of 1972). 2. The plea of the landlordopposite party No. 3 was that accommodation in question is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. 3. The petitioner denied the opposite party's plea and asserted that the accommodation was not in dilapidated condition as contemplated by the Act. 4. In support of their respective pleas, both the parties filed affidavits and also expertreports. On behalf of the landlord, report of Sri S. P. Sharma, Architect of Sharma & Associates was filed, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure3. Apart from submitting his report Sri Sharma also filed affidavit in the case in support of his report. 5. On behalf of the petitioner one Sri Mathur submitted report certifying that the building was not in dilapidated condition. 6. Both the authorities below have upheld the claim of the landlord and rejected the claim of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding recorded by the authorities below on the dilapidated nature of the building. He has invited my attention to (i) 1984 (2) L.C.D. 45, Smt. Chando Devil and others v District Judge, Mathura and others; and (ii) 1986 (4) L.C.D. 346. Ram Kumar v. III Addl District Judge, Faizabad and others and submitted that the two authorities below have not appraised the question of dilapidated nature of the building in the manner laid down in these authorities. 8. In Chando Devi's case (Supra) it has been observed, ''...Legislature while using the word dilapidated along with demolition or reconstruction, left no room for doubt that it should be understood in its stronger sense, that is, the building is beyond repairs and it should be demolished and reconstructed... This view has been followed in Ram Kumar's case (Supra). In the case on hand, the authorities below have preferred to rely on the report of Sri Sharma. In his report, Annexure3, Sri Sharma has observed that the building is 100 years old and its life is over. He has further observed that the bricks used in the construction of the building are Kakaiya bricks and the roof is of wooden planks. The bricks, according to him, are decayed and absolutely instable. In his report, Annexure3, Sri Sharma has observed that the building is 100 years old and its life is over. He has further observed that the bricks used in the construction of the building are Kakaiya bricks and the roof is of wooden planks. The bricks, according to him, are decayed and absolutely instable. He has observed that the portion in occupation of Mr. Manohar is in highly dilapidated condition and most of its portion is collapsing. Regarding the walls, floor and the roof, it is observed that they have decayed fully and are beyond any repairs whatsoever. This is the report which has been accepted by the authorities below. The finding recorded by the authorities below is one of fact and cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the finding is based on relevant evidence on record. On the finding recorded by the two authorities, it cannot be said that the building is not in dilapidated condition by application of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two authorities. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the report of Sri Sharma had been made ex parte and could not be relied upon. I am unable to appreciate this submission of the learned counsel. The report of Sri Sharma was evidence submitted on affidavit. The petitioner had opportunity of rebutting this report by examining his own expert or submiting report of his own expert. The petitioner has availed of this opportunity by placing on record the report of Sri Mathur. Report submitted by Sri Mathur has been appraised and criticised by the courts below. The Court below has observed that Sri Mathur has not made specific observations in respect of matters covered by Sri Sharma's report. The learned counsel could not point out that the appraisement of Mr. Mathur's report done by the Court below suffers from any apparent error. 10. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the report of Sri Sharma, which has been relied upon by the Court below, is mischievous. There is no basis for holding the said report to be mischievous. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court may issue commission for determination of the present state of the building. The parties had full opportunity to adduce evidence on the condition of the building and they have availed of that opportunity. There is no basis for holding the said report to be mischievous. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court may issue commission for determination of the present state of the building. The parties had full opportunity to adduce evidence on the condition of the building and they have availed of that opportunity. Sufficient evidence has already been brought on record and I do not consider it necessary or expedient to issue any commission at this stage. 12. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that the landlord had earlier sought release of the accommodation under Clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 21 of the Act, in which he entered into compromise with the petitioner whereunder a portion of the shop was surrendered in favour of the landlord. The submission of the learned counsel is that if the building was in fact in a dilapidated condition, there was no occasion for the landlord to enter into compromise and obtain possession of a portion of the shop. This question has also been considered by the court below and the plea of the petitioner has been rejected. It may be pointed out that the earlier application under clause (a) was filed prior to 1980 as is apparent from Annexure8, which is copy of the compromise entered into between the landlord and the petitioner at the appellate stage. The year of the appeal, as stated in Annexure8 is 1980'. Much water has obviously, flown since then. The condition of the building cannot remain static. The compromise itself was entered into on 5th July, 1982 while the application giving rise to the present petition was filed on 14th December, 1984. Accordingly, on the basis of compromise arrived at in the earlier proceedings, the present application cannot be rejected. 13. In view of the above, the petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed in limine. (Petition dismissed)