JUDGMENT (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27-5-1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority Bijnor, respondent No. 2, where by the application filed by landlord respon dent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) was allowed, and the order dated 9-4-1997 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order. (2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act, on the allegation that the petitioner is tenant of the shop in question. It is in dilapidated condition. It needs demolition. After demolition of the construction, he will construct three shops, and is ready to give one shop to the petitioner after its reconstruction. The petitioner contested the application. It was denied that the shop was in dilapidated condition. He was carrying on business of Sarafa in the shop in question. The Prescribed Authority recorded finding that shop in question was in dilapidated condition, and allowed the release application by order dated 27-5-1994. The petitioner preferred appeal and respondent No. 1 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 9-4-1997. (3.) I have heard Shri Pramod Bharadwaj Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the contesting respondent. (4.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2 that the shop in question is in dilapidated condition. On perusal of the impugned orders I do not find that findings recorded by respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of evidence on record are illegal. Second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord respondent has proposed to construct three shops after taking delivery of possession of the shop from the petitioner. The landlord submitted map showing that three shops will be constructed on the site of the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. It is contented that he is entitled to all the three shops after reconstruction. (5.) THE petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit and has annexed affidavit of Ram Kishan, respondent No. 3. The landlord submitted map showing that three shops will be constructed on the site of the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. It is contented that he is entitled to all the three shops after reconstruction. (5.) THE petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit and has annexed affidavit of Ram Kishan, respondent No. 3. In para 28 of the affidavit he has stated that he will offer one shop to the petitioner and if the petitioner further requires, other shops, they shall be given to him if the Court so directs on its finding that additional shops are required by the petitioner. In this connection reference to sub-section 2 of Section 24, may be made, which provides that where the landlord after obtaining a release order under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 21, demolishes a building and constructs a new building or buildings on its site, then the District Magistrate may, on an application being made in that behalf by the original tenant within such time as may-be prescribed, allot to him the new building or such one of them as the District Magistrate after considering his requirements thinks fit. (6.) IN view of the averments of the respondent No. 3 in his affidavit referred to above, and keeping in view the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act, the petitioner can apply to the District Magistrate concerned for additional two shops which may be constructed by respondent No. 3 after demolition. As regards one shop, immediately after construction, respondent No. 3 will offer one shop to the petitioner and for such shop it will not be necessary for the petitioner to make an application to the District Magistrate for allotment. Rent of such shop shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the Act. As regards to the other two shop, on their constructions the petitioner shall file an application before the District Magistrate. If the District Magistrate after considering the requirement of the petitioner finds that the additional shops are needed by the petitioner, he can pass order as provided under Section 24 (2) of the Act. As regards to the other two shop, on their constructions the petitioner shall file an application before the District Magistrate. If the District Magistrate after considering the requirement of the petitioner finds that the additional shops are needed by the petitioner, he can pass order as provided under Section 24 (2) of the Act. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after demolition, respondent No. 3 may not construct the shops for a long time, the petitioner shall suffer great hardships as he will not be in a position to run his business, a direction be given to the landlord to construct the shops as proposed by him within specified time. In Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, AIR 1991 SC 455 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in similar facts and circumstances of the case gave the following directions to the landlord in para 4 of the judgment: "we, however, direct that the landlord/appellant shall take effective steps for completing reconstruction of the building within a reasonable period i.e. six months from the date the tenant/respondent vacates the building. The tenant is, however, given time till 31st March, 1991 to vacate the premises. We further direct the landlord/appellant to commence the construction work, if possible, the portion occupied by the tenant, immediately after his vacating the said premises. On completion of the construction the landlord will offer the said premises previously occupied by the tenant/respondent to occupy at the prevalent market rate of rent. " (7.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No. 3 is directed to construct the shops possibly within six months from the date he obtains possession of the shop in question from the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 has filed application stating that map has been sanctioned and he has sufficient funds for raising the construction and under these circumstances there does not seem to be any reason that he would not make construction within six months. (8.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the disputed premises by 30th June, 1997. Respondent No. 3 has filed application stating that map has been sanctioned and he has sufficient funds for raising the construction and under these circumstances there does not seem to be any reason that he would not make construction within six months. (8.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the disputed premises by 30th June, 1997. THE petitioner is granted time up to 30th June, 1997 for vacating the disputed premises provided he gives a written undertaking on affidavit before respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today that he would vacate the disputed accommodation and handover its peaceful possession to respondent No. 3 within the time granted by this Court. Subject to the directions/observations made above, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed subject to directions.