- (1.) HEARD Sri A.R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute. He applied under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for its release.The release application was dismissed by the prescribed authority and the order was affirmed by the appellate court.?
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the rejection of the release application petitioner filed writ petition no. 70574 of 2005 before this Court. This Court while entertaining the writ petition by interim order dated 26.10.2006 directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,900/ - per month as rent of the premises in dispute which was directed to be increased 10% every 5 years. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 26.12.2009. However, on the application for modification of the final order dated 26.12.2009 this Court vide order dated 3.8.2010 clarified that the tenant would continue to pay rent of Rs. 3,900/ - per month as was directed by the interim order dated 26.10.2006 and in case it is not paid, it will be open to the landlord to institute ejectment proceedings. The above order was challenged by the tenant respondent no. 2 before the Supreme Court but the SLP was dismissed on 24.8.2010. The Supreme Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition observed that upholding of direction of payment of rent @ Rs. 3,900/ - per month, does not prevent the tenant from filing a suitable petition before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer seeking fixation of fair rent and till such fair rent is fixed the tenant would continue to pay rent of Rs. 3,900/ - as directed by the High Court.?;