- (1.) THE 13 petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the notices as contained in Annexure 2 to 25 issued by the respondents. THEir further prayer is to command the respondents not to evict them from their accommodation.
(2.) A perusal of the document ap pended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that on the prayer of the petitioner certain qurters were allotted on monthly rental on certain terms and conditions. A perusal of the impugned notices as con tained in Annexures-2 to 25 shows that in terms of condition Nos. 20 and 21 a right to increase monthly rent was vested in the Development Authority, Kanpur. It ap pears that under term No. 7 of the terms of tenancy the liability to pay the normal tax/water tax etc. is on the tenant. It fur ther appears that the tenant was held li able to pay the additional rent on account of certain excess construction made on the allotted quarters at the rate of residen tial/commercial rates. In these back-drop the tenants were informed that they should renew their tenancy by filling ap propriate form and pay arrears of rent failing which the tenancy will stand deter mined automatically. As already stated the petitioners have come up for quashing the aforemen tioned notices. Sri R. C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, which has been placed under heading for admission before us today, submitted that the rents are sought to be increased ar bitrarily and since the petitioners belong to economically weaker section of the Society the reliefs prayed for be granted.
(3.) MR. Lalji Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kanpur Develop ment Authority contended that true it is that no counter- affidavit has been filed by the respondents but in view of the fact that the assertions made in the notices have not been factually denied by the petitioners anywhere in the writ petition they are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by them. Mr. Sinha, in reply very fairly con ceded the factual position that the aver ments made in the notices have not been disputed by the petitioner.;