Sudhir Agarwal, J.:— Both these writ petitions relate to common issue and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsels for the parties, were heard together and are being decided by this common judgement. 2. The landlord filed an application for ejectment of tenant from accommodation in question which is a shop, part of House No. 600, Ward No. 5, Nagarpalika Basti. By means of impugned order dated 18.10.2000 the Appellate Court has remanded the matter to Trial Court setting aside Trial Court's judgement and order dated 13.11.1997 and directing to decide the question, whether the building is in dilapidated condition or not and thereafter to proceed further to consider, whether the application is liable to be allowed under Section 21 (1)(b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") read with Rule 17 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1972"). 3. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that there are certain observations in the appellate order which may be treated by Trial Court to be expression on merits of the matter which may create complications. 4. In the circumstances, it is clarified that the observations, if any, made by Appellate Court in the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2000 shall not be treated to be an expression or opinion on merits of issue and Trial Court shall consider and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of evidence available before it. The Trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order dated 18.10.2000 passed by Appellate Court is upheld and both the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed. _____________