JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders allowing the release application filed by the respondent landlord. 3. The petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises which was purchased by the respondent No. 4 in April, 1989 whereafter he filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for demolition and reconstruction. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 2.5.1992 allowed the application holding that the premises were in dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction and the respondent No. 4 had the financial capacity. During the pendency of the appeal, the disputed property was sold by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 14.8.1996 who was thereafter impleaded. However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 9.3.1998 upholding the findings of the Prescribed Authority. 4. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 11384 of 1998 and a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the findings of the Courts below so far as its demolition and reconstruction were concerned. However, in respect to the financial status of the new landlord for fulfilling requirement under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act, it found that the appellate Court has not discussed it and therefore, it remanded the matter vide order dated 18.3.1999 to the appellate Court only to consider whether the respondent No. 3 had the financial capacity to complete the construction. 5. After remand, both the parties led their respective evidence and the appeal was again dismissed by the order dated 10.3.2000 holding that the respondent landlord had the financial capacity for the construction of the building in question and, it also found that there was full compliance of the requirements of Rule 17 of the Act. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the records and the evidence recorded by the Court below but yet has failed to demonstrate that any of the findings are apparently perverse or vitiated on any account. Even otherwise, the said findings are findings of fact and do not require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Even otherwise, the said findings are findings of fact and do not require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this Court may fix a time limit for completion of constructions in view of Section 24 of the Act so that the petitioner may apply for allotment under the said section. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Omprakash Singh v. 4th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, 2008 (3) ARC 432, in support thereof. 8. No doubt, the Court, as held in Omprakash Singh’s case (supra), can prescribe a time period within which the construction should be completed, but it cannot be a rule for universal application and would depend on facts of each case. From the record it is apparent that the release of the premises for demolition and reconstruction was sought in 1990, the impugned judgment was rendered in the year 2000, now after 20 years of the filing of the application the costs would have escalated tremendously and the parties may have changed their position, therefore, without there being any factual averment so far as the situation prevailing as on date is concerned, the Court refrains from specifying any time limit in the present peculiar facts of this case. 9. For the reasons above, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, writ petition is rejected and the prayer for fixing a time limit is also rejected. ————