S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THIS review petition has been filed by tenant-respondent No. 2 seeking to review my judgment and order dated 10. 3. 2006. Some portions of my judgment are quoted below:-"it was also stated that just behind the shop land having dimension of 8 x 75 was also purchased by the landlady. However, there was no proper passage to the said land except through the shops in dispute. Hence landlady proposed to make construction on the said land in such manner that the said construction along with shop in dispute could be properly approachable. " "it is also important to note that landlords had not asserted that they would completely convert the land occupied by the shop in dispute into rasta after demolishing the same. In such eventuality the release application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not have been maintainable. What the landlords asserted was that they would reconstruct/remodel the shop in dispute in such manner that their adjoining land also becomes easily accessible where they intended to construct shops. " Ultimately I allowed the writ petition in the following manner:-"writ petition is therefore allowed. Judgment and order passed by the appellate Court is set aside. Judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority releasing the shop in dispute is maintained with the modification that within six months from getting possession of the shop in dispute, landlords shall construct a shop of same dimensions as of the disputed shop in the adjoining land and hand-over possession of the same to the tenant. The rent of the new shop shall be Rs. 500/- per month. " ( 3 ) LANDLORD alongwith his counter-affidavit to the review application sworn on 9. 12. 2007 has filed copy of the sanctioned map (regarding sanction/permission there is some dispute between parties ). In the said map existing shop in dispute and the land behind that purchased by the landlord has been shown. It is in the shape of a long strip (8 x 90 ). Towards road existing shop in dispute width of which is 7 6" along side road and depth is 21 6" has been shown, Thereafter staircase is shown and thereafter open Court yard of 12 depth is shown. It is in the shape of a long strip (8 x 90 ). Towards road existing shop in dispute width of which is 7 6" along side road and depth is 21 6" has been shown, Thereafter staircase is shown and thereafter open Court yard of 12 depth is shown. Thereafter one shop of 15 depth is shown and thereafter shop of 17 depth is shown which is proposed to be given to the tenant after construction. The Court during argument repeatedly enquired from the learned Counsel for landlord as to how the tenant would reach to the proposed shop as he would have to pass through two shops and there was no guarantee that the occupants of the said shops would allow free access to him and his customers, however no reply to the said query could be given. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the tenant suggested that the tenant was ready to take a shop on the first floor in case landlord agreed for constructing a shop over the existing shop. In that eventuality, the entire strip of land on the ground floor would have, become available to the landlord to construct anything. Learned Counsel for the landlord did not agree to the said suggestion. ( 5 ) THE other offer made by learned Counsel for the tenant Sri A. N. Sinha was that rent might be enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month. To the said suggestion also learned Counsel for the landlord did not agree. ( 6 ) FROM the perusal of the proposed map I am satisfied that the shop which is proposed by the landlord to be constructed and given to the tenant cannot at all be used as a shop and it will not be accessible and in any case for reaching there the tenant and his customer would be on the mercy of occupiers of the two shops intervening between the road and the proposed shop. ( 7 ) THIS will not be in accordance with the judgment dated 10. 3. 2006. ( 8 ) AS landlord has outrightly refused to provide such accommodation which may reasonably be described as shop to the tenant hence judgment dated 10. 3. 2006 has to be set aside. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY review petition is allowed. Judgment and order dated 10. 3. 2006 is set aside. Writ petition is dismissed. 3. 2006. ( 8 ) AS landlord has outrightly refused to provide such accommodation which may reasonably be described as shop to the tenant hence judgment dated 10. 3. 2006 has to be set aside. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY review petition is allowed. Judgment and order dated 10. 3. 2006 is set aside. Writ petition is dismissed. However it is directed that with effect from May, 2008 rent must be paid @ Rs. WOO/- per month as offered by the tenant himself (supra ). ( 10 ) RENT since March, 2006 till April, 2008 has been deposited @ Rs. 500/-per month. The said amount shall be paid to the landlord at once. If tenders of deposit are not available then order of disbursement may be passed on the basis of the register maintained for the said purpose. Petition Allowed. .