TARACHAND AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the bunch of the writ petitions, petitioners are questioning the validity of the recovery towards enhanced rent from the petitioners as per order dated 26. 8. 2008.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16168 of 2009 has Shop No. C-40 allotted in the name of the firm in the year 1996. Petitioners have contended in the agreement, which had been entered inter-se parties i. e. in between petitioners' firm and Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Saharanpur, there was no such stipulation that after every there years there would enhancement of rent. Petitioners have contended that second agreement, was entered inter-se petitioners and Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh on 25. 2. 2003, and as per Clause-8, after every three years rent in question could have been enhanced upto 10% and said lease deed was to be registered and as said lease deed has not been registered, as such petitioners are not at all entitled to make payment of enhanced rent. Notice was given to petitioner for depositing of enhanced rent on 21. 5. 2008, and to the said notice, objection had been filed on 28. 5. 2008. Thereafter, order has been passed taking the view that petitioners are liable to pay enhanced rent after expiry of period of three years, failing which said amount would be realized as arrears of land revenue. Against the said order, revision has been filed and same has also been dismissed on 19. 1. 2005. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) SRI Madhusudan Dikshit, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners advance argument by contending that plea raised in the present Writ Petition No. 18186 of 2007 will also cover the plea of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16192 of 2009 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16193 of 2009, and as such present writ petition be treated as leading writ petition, and precise contention of petitioners is that in the agreement of the year 1996, there was no agreement regarding increase of rent at the rate of 10% after every three years, as such said increase could not have been affected upon and coupled with this as pursuant to second agreement, registration had not been done, as such said increase is unsustainable and as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.