JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. Tenant/petitioner, herein, is assailing order dated 9.10.2014 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun in P.A. Misc. Case No. 6 of 2013, whereby application of the tenant/petitioner, herein, seeking permission to carry out major repairs in the tenanted property was rejected on the ground that application moved by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has already been allowed against the tenant directing the tenant to vacate the tenanted property and to handover the same to the landlord for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction of the building. Under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, a tenant can be directed to vacate the tenanted property on the ground that tenanted property is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and reconstruction. Undisputedly, landlord/respondents, herein, had preferred P.A. Case No. 1 of 2013 in the Court of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun seeking release of the tenanted premises on the ground that tenanted property is in dilapidated condition beyond repair, therefore, same may be released in favour of the landlord for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction. Application moved under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was hotly contested by the tenant/petitioner, herein, and was allowed, vide judgment and order dated 9.10.2014, directing the tenant/petitioner, herein, to handover vacant peaceful possession to the landlord within thirty days and further directing the landlord to complete the reconstruction, after demolishing the building, within ten months from the date of taking possession from the tenant, as per the sanctioned map and to handover suitable portion to the tenant for his occupation. During the pendency of the application under Section 21 (1) (b) seeking release of the building on the ground that tenanted property is in dilapidated condition and beyond repair, tenant/petitioner, herein, moved application P.A. Case No. 06 of 2013 seeking permission from the Court to carry out repairs in the tenanted property, which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide impugned order. Under Section 28 of the Act, Prescribed Authority may direct the landlord to carry out the requisite major repairs within such time as may be specified in the order, and on failure to do so, permit the tenant to carry out those repairs at a cost not exceeding such amount (which shall not be more than the amount of two years’ rent) and within such period as may be specified in the order. In the judgment dated 9.10.2014 passed in P.A. Case No. 1 of 2013 under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act, learned Prescribed Authority has recorded finding that tenanted building is in dilapidated condition beyond repair, therefore, requires demolition and reconstruction. Thus, in my considered opinion, if tenanted building is held to be in dilapidated condition beyond repair and court has come to the conclusion that only remedy available is to demolish the dilapidated building and to reconstruct the same, therefore, repair as suggested by the tenant under Section 28 of the Act cannot be granted. If permission to carry out repair is granted under Section 28 of the Act, it would be contrary to the findings recorded in a proceeding under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. No court is supposed to record contrary findings in the same set of facts in two different proceedings, one under Section 21 (1) (b) and another under Section 28 of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any justification to take contrary view to the view taken by the court below. At this stage, Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner, submits that since appeal is pending against the judgment dated 9.10.2014, thereby releasing the building in favour of landlord to demolish the building and to reconstruct the same, therefore, to avoid any accident during the pendency of the appeal tenant should be permitted to carry out repairs at his own risk and cost. I am afraid, arguments so advanced by Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reasons already recorded hereinbefore. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the Appellate Court to decide the Rent Control Appeal No. 126 of 2014 at its own merit in accordance with law, preferably within sixty days from the date copy of this order is communicated to learned Appellate Court. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the Appellate Court to decide the Rent Control Appeal No. 126 of 2014 at its own merit in accordance with law, preferably within sixty days from the date copy of this order is communicated to learned Appellate Court. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. CLMA No. 13091 of 2014 also stands disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the Appellate Court for information and compliance.