Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri M.A.Qadeer, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.Hisham Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner and and Sri Shri Kant, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application was filed by respondent-landlord for seeking eviction from premises in question i.e. shop on the ground that it is in dilapidated condition i.e. under Section 21(1)(b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and therefore, he should directed to be evicted so that landlord-respondent may proceed to demolish and reconstruct the same. 3. Both the Courts below have not found that accommodation in question was in dilapidated condition and there is concurrent finding otherwise yet they have decreed the suit by directing petitioner to hand over possession of premises in question to the respondent-landlord and thereafter seek re-entry after its demolition and reconstruction by enforcing his right under Section 24 of Act, 1972. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent, when questioned, fairly stated that in none of the two judgments, impugned in this writ petition, there is any finding that accommodation in question is in dilapidated condition. 5. That being so, in my view, ejectment of petitioner-tenant from premises in question on the ground under Section 21(1)(b) of Act, 1972 is not permissible. 6. It appears from the impugned judgment and pleadings of parties that respondent-landlord intended to get accommodation in question vacated so as to make a new market place by demolishing adjoining buildings and by using accommodation in question as a passage, which is causing obstruction in execution of aforesaid plan, but that cannot be a ground for ejectment of tenant from accommodation in question since no such ground is provided either under Section 20 or 21 of Act, 1972. 6. Moreover, it is admitted by learned counsel for respondent-landlord that he has not sought ejectment of petitioner-tenant on any ground under Section 21 of Act, 1972 though in application Section 21 of Act, 1972 was mentioned but it was wrong mention of provision and application was basically founded on a ground under Section 21(1)(b) and for that purpose evidence was led and the matter was considered by Courts below. 7. In view thereof, the impugned orders cannot sustain. The writ petition is allowed. 7. In view thereof, the impugned orders cannot sustain. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 03.2.1997 and 15.9.2003 (Annexure No.15 and 17 to the writ petition) are quashed and the suit of the respondent-landlord is dismissed. _____________