S. U. KHAN, J. Substitution application to bring on record legal represen tative of tenant respondent No. 2, the only contesting respondent has been al lowed today. Notices on the said application were issued to the proposed heirs. Inspite of sufficient services as per office report dated 7. 7. 2008 they did not engage any Counsel. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the landlord-petitioner trust. 3. This is landlords writ petition arising out of release proceedings initi ated by it against original tenant respondent No. 2, Jyoti Swaroop since de ceased and survived by legal representative on the ground of dilapidated condition of the tenanted shop in dispute under section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Release appli cation was registered as P. A. Case No. 29 of 1987 on the file of Prescribed Authority/munsif City Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad and was allowed on 8. 8. 1989. It was held that the shop in dispute was very old and in dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. Ingredients of Rules 17 of the Rules framed under the Act were found to have been proved by the landlord. 4. Rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 6. 25/- per month and it was found by prescribed authority that the construction of the shop was more than 100 years old. Against the said judgment and order original tenant respondent No. 2 filed R. C. Appeal No. 122 of 1989. IInd A. D. J. Farrukhabad allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 7. 7. 1994, set aside the release order passed by the prescribed authority and rejected the release application of the land lord, hence this writ petition. 5. The Appellate Court held that it was not proved that the building was in dilapidated condition. Appellate Court further held that map of the new construction had not been passed by the Municipal Board and it was not shown that it was in accordance with the relevant rules of Nagar Mahapalika. 6. Landlord asserted that building was more than 100 years old while tenant asserted that it was 60 years old. 21 years have passed since filing of the release application. During this period some further damage must have oc curred. The tenant in support of his case had filed report of city Engineer, Sri J. P. Gupta. 6. Landlord asserted that building was more than 100 years old while tenant asserted that it was 60 years old. 21 years have passed since filing of the release application. During this period some further damage must have oc curred. The tenant in support of his case had filed report of city Engineer, Sri J. P. Gupta. However, Sri Gupta did not file his affidavit to verify his report. Sri J. P. Gupta had also not given any details in his report. Lower Appellate Court wrongly held that it was not essential for the city Engineer to give de tailed reasons for his report. Lower Appellate Court further held that it was also not necessary for Sri J. P. Gupta the city Engineer to file affidavit. I do not agree with any of the reasons. Firstly, it was necessary to file affidavit to prove the report and secondly, report being sketchy not containing the details could not relied upon. Reports based on subjective satisfaction, even of experts, are not of much value. 7. The other point taken by the Lower Appellate Court for allowing the appeal is that map was not passed by the Municipal Board. Under Rule 17 (III) the requirement is as follows :- "that a plan has been duly prepared and conforms to the bye-laws or regulations of the local authority or other statutory authority under any law in that behalf for the time being in force. " 8. The map was filed which was prepared by R. P. Misra, retired Engineer Rural Engineering Services, who also filed his affidavit. The report of Sri R. P. Misra is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Under the sub- heading new proposal 31 in the said report it has been mentioned that requirements of master plan were being kept in mind while preparing the proposal; three feet land has been left for widening the road, five feet land has been left in front. Permissible size of the shop (under master plan) has also been mentioned in the report. 9. Lower Appellate Court did not say a single word as to which provision, rule, regulation or bye-law in respect of construction was not followed or vio lated. 10. Accordingly, I am of the view that judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court is erroneous in law. 11. 9. Lower Appellate Court did not say a single word as to which provision, rule, regulation or bye-law in respect of construction was not followed or vio lated. 10. Accordingly, I am of the view that judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court is erroneous in law. 11. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed, judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and judgment and order passed by the appellate authority is restored. 12. There is a lacuna in U. P. Rent Control Act to the effect that no time frame is provided for reconstruction after getting possession of the building un der section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. 13. Accordingly, it is directed that within six months from obtaining pos session from the tenant, petitioner-landlord shall reconstruct the shop and handover possession of the newly constructed shop to the tenant. The rent of the newly constructed shop shall be Rs. 500/- per month tentatively. However, any of the parties may approach the prescribed authority for fixing reasonable monthly rent (i. e. 1/120 of cost of new construction ). It is further directed that if due to any reason whatsoever newly constructed shop is not handed over to the tenant within six months from taking possession then since after six months from taking possession until newly constructed shop is handed over to the ten ant landlord shall pay Rs. 500/- per month to the landlord. This direction is being issued in view of Supreme Court judgment in "s. J. Abbas v. Mohd. Yamin", AIR 2004 SC 3683 . Petition Allowed. .