S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Both the learned Counsel agreed that the writ petition might be disposed of at the admission stage.
(3.) Release application filed by landlord-respondent under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against tenants-petitioners was allowed. Against the said order tenants-petitioners have filed R.C. Appeal No. 1 of 2007, which is pending before A.D.J. Court No. 1, Deoria. The learned A.D'.J. through order dated 31.5.2007 has granted stay order in favour of the tenants-petitioners on the condition that tenants pay rent to the landlord-respondent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month as against the agreed rent of Rs. 60/- per month. Absolutely no fault can be found in the imposition of the condition with the stay order in view of the Supreme Court Authority reported in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors, 2005 (1) SCC 705 : 2005 (2) ARC 936 : 2005 SCFBRC 99 . However, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that condition imposed in onerous. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that it is rather on the lower side, as the total area of the shop is 80 sq, meter. (The extent of area is disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioners). Learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate, Deoria of the locality where shop in dispute is situated is Rs. 12,000/- per sq. meter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, does not dispute the circle rate.;