Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.K.Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amitabh Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Ateek Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) It is contended by Sri P.K.Jain, Advocate that in the present case there was no agreement which was due to expire at a particular time since it is a case of perpetual lease of continuing tenancy and therefore determination of rent under Section 29-A(5) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") could not have been made. He drew my attention to application of landlord and contended that there is no averment that there existed any agreement for a particular period which has expired so as to attract Section 29-A(5) of Act, 1972.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that initially only a land was leased out with a right to raise construction and since more than hundred years have already passed, respondent-landlord rightly moved application for determination of rent under Act, 1972. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this is a fit case where this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.;