POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The order impugned in the instant writ petition is dated 29. 5. 2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao, in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2005, under Section 24 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. The shop in question having an area of 1. 511 square meter bearing No. 103, situated in Mohalla Mubarij Nagar, Sadar Bazar Chauraha, Unnao was released under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. 4. The Apex Court disposed of S. L. P. vide order dated 29. 4. 1994 with a direction that the tenant shall handover possession of the shop in question to the landlord for reconstruction within one month of sanction of the plan over the building complex, which the landlord proposes to construct and thereafter one shop shall be re-let and possession shall be delivered to the tenant after completion of the same. This entire exercise was liable to be carried out within a period of fifteen months from the date, possession was handed over to the landlord by the tenant. 5. The Act provides for re-fixing of the rent after the tenant is allowed re-entry under Section 24 (2) of the Act. The tenant is made liable to pay rent of such a constructed building, which shall be calculated and enhanced by 1% per month of the cost of construction including cost of demolition of the old building but not include value of the land. 6. In the instant case, after constructed shop was handed over to the tenant, the trial court fixed rate of rent Rs. 300 per month vide order dated 16. 8. 2005, which was challenged in an appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court for the reason that cost of demolition was not calculated, therefore, it was directed that the architect should get entire construction reassessed revalued including cost of demolition within a period of three months and also take into consideration the prevalent rate of rent of the other shops situated in the vicinity. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao, remanded the matter by means of the impugned order dated 29. 5. 2007. 7. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao, remanded the matter by means of the impugned order dated 29. 5. 2007. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to emphasize that the appellate court has failed to interpret provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act in its correct perspective, which only provides, rent to be calculated at the rate of 1% of the approximate cost of construction, which shall include the cost of demolition. Therefore, the appellate court has exceeded its jurisdiction while directing the R. C. E. O. to make assessment of the prevalent rate of rent of other shops in the vicinity before fixing the rent. 8. After hearing counsel for the respective parties at length and going through the provisions of the Act, I am not inclined to interfere in the remand order. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to adhere strictly to provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act. Any observation by the learned Additional District Judge to assess the rent of other shops in the close vicinity is uncalled for. Admittedly, the construction is new one and cost of construction at present is also very, high and, therefore, rent prevalent in the other shops, which are constructed long back and rent paid by the said shopkeeper cannot be taken into consideration. This part of the order of the Additional District Judge stands quashed. The trial court is directed to decide the matter afresh within the time frame fixed by the Additional District Judge. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition is finally disposed. .