SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) THE delay in filing the writ petition has been explained in various paragraphs. There is no serious objection, therefore, the writ petition be treated within time.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have prayed this Court for quashing the order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the respondent No.1, filed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition.
(3.) IT appears that petitioner No.2 is a tenant of an accommodation owned by the respondent No.3. Earlier rent was being paid @ 600/- per month. Subsequently, the respondent landlord made an application under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for enhancement of rent. With an affidavit the report of the valuer was submitted by the respondents to this effect that the rent of the aforesaid premises should be above Rs.4000/-. It also appears that the Tehsildar of the district was also directed to submit a report. He submitted a report on 24.3.2007 mentioning therein that the valuation of the property will be more than Rs.5 lacs, and therefore, accordingly the rent will be Rs.3507/- per month. The competent authority after considering the pleadings of the parties and the report of the Tehsildar as well as the report of the Valuer has come to the conclusion that rate of rent should be Rs.3289/- per month, but an order of slider has been fixed that this enhanced rent will be payable from the date of order, i.e., 6.8.2007.;