JUDGMENT : - Sudhir Naniin, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26-3-1w passed by respondent No. 1 al lowing tilt appeal and dismissing the release application filed by the petitioner. 2. BRIEFLY staled, the facts are that the petitioner filed an application under See-lion 21 (1)(b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against Mubarak AH respondent No. 5 with the allegations that Smt. Raisa wife of Akil Ahmed (mother of the petitioner) purchased the property in dispute and Mubarak Ali was the tenant since before the purchase of the property. Smt. Raisa made an oral gift of the disputed property in his favour. She had also directed the tenant to pay rent to the petitioner. He started realising the rent from him. The disputed property is in a dilapidated condition and cracks have developed in walls and ceiling, it requires demolition and reconstruction. Mubarak Ah respondent No. 5 filed written statement. He admitted the rate, of rent and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also admitted that the disputed property is in a dilapidated condition. He wanted that the time may be granted to vacate the disputed accommodation but after its reconstruction, reconstructed shop be given to him in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application on 4-5-1996. The petitioner took possession of the disputed property on 7-7-1996. 3. MOHAMMED Ashif respondent No. 4 filed appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 4-5-1996 alleging that he was in occupation of the disputed property and he has been illegally dispossessed in pursuance to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 4-5-1996. His case was that Mubarak Ali was not tenant of the disputed property. The disputed property was a residential building and he was residing in it. His version was that Ehsan Khan was the owner of this building. After the death of Ehsan Khan, he was succeeded by his widow Bundi and sons Sayeed Ahmad, Rashid Ahmad, Rasheed and daughters Shahjahan, Shahnay. Bano, Rashida, Saira and Sayeeda. Saira, Sayeeda and. their mother Bundi are dead. Sayeed Ahmad one of the sons of Ehsan Khan had executed registered agreement for sale on 16-7-1994 in his favour in respect of his share in the building in question. Bano, Rashida, Saira and Sayeeda. Saira, Sayeeda and. their mother Bundi are dead. Sayeed Ahmad one of the sons of Ehsan Khan had executed registered agreement for sale on 16-7-1994 in his favour in respect of his share in the building in question. He subsequently colluded with Smt. Raisa Begum and threatened to transfer to a third party. He filed Suit No. 324 of 1994 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) City, Saharanpur restraining the defendants from transferring the property to any one. The suit is still pending. 4. RESPONDENT No. 1 has allowed the appeal holding that the disputed premises is not a shop but is part of big house. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected on 26-3-1996. There are two questions, firstly, as to whether Mubarak All was the tenant of the disputed premises and secondly whether Mohammed Ashif respondent No. 4 had, prima facie, any right and title over the property in dispute. 5. THE petitioner had filed the application under Section 21 (l) (b) of the Act against Mubarak Ali alleging that Raisa Begum had purchased the disputed property and Mubarak Ali was the tenant. Raisa Begum gifted the property to the petitioner. Mubarak Ali started paying rent to the petitioner. THE application Under Section 21 (l) (b) of the Act can be filed against the tenant. Respondent No. 1 did not record any specific finding as to whether Mubarak Ali was tenant. It has made a casual observation "prima facie, it proves that Mubarak Ali was not tenant of the disputed property at the time of filing the release application." THE Court was required to examine the evidence on record as to whether Mubarak Ali was tenant of the disputed property. THE petitioner is alleged to have filed the documents to prove these facts but respondent No. 1 ignored to consider the material evidence on the record and this has vitiated its judgment. 6. THE next question is the right of Mohammad Ashif in the property in dispute. He claimed that Sayeed Ahmad had executed an agreement to sell his share in the property in dispute on 16-7-1994 and put him in possession. THE sale-deed has not yet been executed. There are other co-owners of the property. 6. THE next question is the right of Mohammad Ashif in the property in dispute. He claimed that Sayeed Ahmad had executed an agreement to sell his share in the property in dispute on 16-7-1994 and put him in possession. THE sale-deed has not yet been executed. There are other co-owners of the property. THE Court was to examine as to whether the version of respondent No. 4 was correct that he was put in possession of the disputed property particularly when there was no partition amongst the co-sharers of the disputed building. On the other hand, the version of the petitioner is that Raisa Begum, her mother had purchased the property by registered sale-deed and Mubaiak Ali was already tenant. THE Court was to examine the necessary evidence on the record and record a categorical finding on these aspects before it rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 21 (l) (b) of the Act. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26-3-1997 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall decide the appeal afresh keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law. As the third party raised various questions of fact, the Court shall permit the parties to lead evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the par ties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.