Judgment S.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16th July, 1983 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal and dismissing the release application filed by the landlord-petitioner. (2) The petitioner filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the year 1980 with the allegations that the disputed shop is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. It was further required for his sons, namely, Lokesh Kumar and Vinai. The application was contested by the defendant-respondent. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application. The tenant-respondent filed an appeal and the appeal was allowed by the impugned order dated 16th July, 1983. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. (3) The Appellate Authority has recorded a finding that the disputed shop is not in a dilapidated condition, therefore, the application cannot be allowed under Section 21 (l) (b) of the Act. It has further found that the need for additional accommodation for the business purpose is not genuine and bona fide. These findings have been assailed in this writ petition. (4) The question whether the building is in a dilapidated condition or not is a question of fact. I do not find any legal infirmity in this finding. As regards bona fide need, the Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the sons of the landlord were jointly carrying on business with their father. Now 20 years have passed. The situation has changed during the last 20 years. It will be open to the petitioner to file another application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act and if such application is filed before the Prescribed Authority, the same shall be decided afresh in accordance with law within a period of six month. (5) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.