YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) T h e petitioners are tenants of a residential house. Sri Satish Chandra and Sri Mahesh chandra, the two brothers, were landlords of the same. The landlords filed an application under section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) with the allegation that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction after demolition. This application was partly allowed on 10. 10. 1978 and it was held that south-eastern portion of the building is in dilapidated condition. Both sides filed appeals, which were dismissed on 22. 9. 1979. The landlords filed Writ Petition No. 10346 of 1979 (the earlier writ petition) against these orders, which was disposed of on 6. 1. 1984. This court held that : 1. The north-eastern portion was also not in good condition and the entire building should be demolished. ( 2 ) THE south-eastern portion of building be reconstructed and possession of the same to be given to tenants first. 4. The landlords could demolish the remaining portion of the building and reconstruct it. 2. There was partition between the landlords, namely, Sri Satish Chandra and Sri Mahesh chandra. A partition suit was also filed and was decreed. In this decree, the premises in dispute fell in share of Sri Satish Chandra (the contesting respondent ). He filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the release of the premises in dispute. This application was allowed on 31. 7. 1990. The petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 11. 3. 1991. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 8357 of 1991 (first writ petition) against these decisions. In this case, they also obtained an interim order on 21. 3. 1991 staying their eviction. ( 3 ) THE landlords started proceedings for demolition of the building in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 6. 1. 1984 in the earlier writ petition. The prescribed authority passed an order on 4. 9. 1991 directing the petitioners to handover the possession of the premises in dispute in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 6. 1. 1984. The petitioners have filed Writ Petition no. 26032 of 1991 (the second writ petition) against the order of prescribed authority dated 4. 9. 1991 and have obtained a stay order. 9. 1991 directing the petitioners to handover the possession of the premises in dispute in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 6. 1. 1984. The petitioners have filed Writ Petition no. 26032 of 1991 (the second writ petition) against the order of prescribed authority dated 4. 9. 1991 and have obtained a stay order. Points for Determination ( 4 ) I have heard Sri Govind Krishna, counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Pandey and Sri S. M. Dayal counsel for the contesting respondent. Sri Govind Krishna, counsel for the petitioners, has raised following points : (i) Once the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (b) have come to an end, fresh proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act cannot be started. (ii) By the order of this Court dated 6. 1. 1984, the southeastern portion of the building is to be reconstructed and is to be given to the petitioners, These directions cannot be defeated in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. (iii) The partition between the landlords is a sham transaction. Ist and IInd Point : Proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) and 21 (1) (b) are Independent proceedings ( 5 ) IN proceedings under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act, a Court can allow demolition and reconstruction of the building if it is in dilapidated condition. But after reconstruction the property is not released in favour of landlord, but is given to the tenants. A property can be released in favour of landlord in proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The purposes of these two subsections of Section 21 (1) of the Act are different. And the landlord has to allege and prove different facts before orders can be passed in these subsections. These proceedings are different and independent of each other. ( 6 ) THE High Court had passed an order on 6. 1. 1984 in the earlier writ petition in pursuance of the orders in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. The property could not be released in favour of the landlord in these proceedings. The fact that proceeding started under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act have come to an end does not mean that proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act cannot be started. The order-dated 6. 1. The property could not be released in favour of the landlord in these proceedings. The fact that proceeding started under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act have come to an end does not mean that proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act cannot be started. The order-dated 6. 1. 1984 in the earlier writ petition neither bars the proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) n o r invalidates the order under Section 21 (1) (a), of the act, The validity of order under Section 21 (1) (a) has to be judged independently. IIIrd Point : Partition is not Sham ( 7 ) THE third submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the partition between the landlords is a sham transaction. The courts below have held that there has been partition as well as partition decree in a suit. This partition decree is binding among the landlords. The courts below have held this partition to be bona fide. There is no illegality in this finding. Bona fide need and Hardship ( 8 ) THE Prescribed Authority as well as appellate court has held that need of the landlord is bona fide. The Prescribed Authority has compared hardship and has held in favour of the contesting respondent. The appellate court has not compared the hardship in view of availability of accommodation with the petitioner. I see no justification to interfere with these findings. Conclusions ( 9 ) THE Writ Petition No. 8357 of 1993 (first writ petition) have no merit and is dismissed. It is not disputed that in view of the Writ Petition No. 26032 of 1991 (the second writ petitions) has become infructuous. It is also dismissed. However, the petitioners may not be evicted for a period of 9 months provided they file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within two month from today that they will peacefully handover the possession within 9 months and pay the rent for the period of their occupation. With these observations both the writ petitions are dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of Writ Petition No. 26032 of 1991. .