Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) LIST revised.
(2.) NONE is present on behalf of the respondent. The present writ petition arises out of the proceedings under section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. By the impugned order dated 27th June, 2002 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer enhanced the rent with effect from 14th June, 1990. The said order was challenged in appeal. Along with the memo of appeal an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed. The said application has been dismissed by the District Judge Jalaun at Urai by or der dated 29th January, 2004. Challenging the aforesaid two orders the present writ petition has been filed. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has vacated the disputed accommodation on 1st January, 1988 and as such the question of enhancement of rent with effect from 14th June, 1990 does not arise. The said averment has been made in second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The said fact has not been controverted. The learned Standing Counsel has informed that the case is running on the list since long, but the respondent's Counsel is not. It may be noted that the petitioners were forced to deposited the rent in view of the cita tion issued against them for the recovery of the amount. This Court by the order dated 26th June, 2006 passed the following order: This is an urgent application filed for stay of recovery certificate dated 15.5.2006 (Annexure S.A. 5 to the application). The case of the petitioner is that the minor irrigation department has already vacated the building and had given the possession of the Same to the respondent in the year 1988 itself and therefore there is no reason or occasion to recover any rent includ ing the enhanced rent, if any, from the petitioner after 1988. However, in view of the stand of the petitioner its is directed that the department may deposit the aforesaid sum of Rs. 7, 14, 025/- awarded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within one month from today, the same shall not be released in favour of the respondents till further order of the Court. List on 10th August, 2006." The contesting respondents have not disputed the petitioners' allega tion that they have vacated the accommodation in question in the year 1988 it self. The uncontroverted averement made by the petitioners is, therefore, ac cepted as correct. This being so, the question of enhancement of rent w.e.f. 14th of June, 1990 obviously does not arise. The Courts below were not justified in passing the impugned orders and the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
(3.) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. THE money so deposited in pursuance of the interim order dated 26th June, 2006 can be withdrawn by the petitioners. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.;