Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) DUPLICATE copy of supplementary affidavit sworn on 4.9.2002 has been supplied by learned Counsel for the petitioner. In para -5 of the affidavit it has been stated that Secretary of respondent No. 2 -landlord Agarwal Dharmshala has given an affidavit sworn on 17.8.1983 to the effect that he does not want to contest the writ petition and has accepted the petitioner as tenant of the Dharmshala. He has no objection to the writ petition being allowed. Learned Counsel for landlord respondent No. 2 states that his client is not responding. It appears that Secretary of respondent No. 2 infact has agreed for accepting the petitioner as tenant and not evicting him. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are reported to be previous tenant and unauthorized occupant respectively. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that after allotment of shop in dispute in his favour petitioner is in possession and paying regular rent of Rs. 200/ - per month to respondent No. 2 which was fixed through the allotment order.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , writ petition is allowed. Order dated 26.7.1982 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Aligarh in U.P.U.B. Revision No. 6 of 1982 (through which the said revision was allowed and allotment order in favour of petitioner was set aside) is set aside and allotment order dated 28.1.1982 is approved and restored. However, the shop in dispute is situate at Agra Road Aligarh which is important locality of Aligarh. Shop belongs to Dharmshala. Rent of Rs. 200/ - per month is quite in adequate. Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from September 2007 onward petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord -respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per month.;