Judgment 1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash (i) the complaint (copy not appended) made by the Secretary, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the V.D.A.) for her eviction from Quarter No. 1/10, Deoki Nandan Ki Haveli, Ramapura, Varanasi, (ii) the Notice dated 16-11-1987 in P.P. Act Case No. 919 of 1987 (as contained in An-nexure-5) issued by the Prescribed Authority/city Magistrate under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (iii) the proceeding pending on the basis of the impugned notice, and (iv) the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 23-1-1984 (as contained in Annexure-3) by which a monthly instalment of Rs. 252.86 paisa Rs. 211.39 paisa and interest at the rate of 12%/9% was fixed: (1) A prayer has also been made to command the respondents not to charge interest on the amount payable by the petitioner towards the price of Quarter No. 1/10, Deoki Nandan Ki Haveli, Ramapura, Varanasi and to accept a monthly instalment of Rs. 50 towards payment of the dues. (2) A further prayer has been made to restrain the Tahsildar, Sadar, Varanasi from sending any Amin to the petitioner for realisation of any dues and instalment regarding the aforementioned quarter. 2. The petitioner asserts, inter alia, that she is sweeper and thereby scheduled caste, who was previously living along with the members of her family in a dilapidated house bearing No. D-41/2, Deoki Nandan Ki Haveli, Ramapura, Varanasi on payment of Re. 1, which was raised to ground by the bulldozer of the V.D.A. under the 20 point programme launched by the Government of U.P. persons belonging to Harijan and Weaker Sections of the society were to be provided houses, and accordingly the Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi constructed Deoki Nandan Ki Haveli Colony, Ramapura, for allotment of a flat in this colony the Authority imposed a condition that the income of the allottee should be Rs. 350 per month ; since the petitioner fulfilled that condition, she applied for allotment of a flat; Quarter No. 1/10 in question was allotted to her on the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of Agreement dated 23-1-1984 (as contained in Annexure-3); as per the terms and conditions of the agreement a sum of Rs. 19504.85 was fixed as the price of that quarter and a sum of Rs. 19504.85 was fixed as the price of that quarter and a sum of Rs. 1195.15 paisa was fixed as premium of the land, 15% per annum was fixed as the rate of interest and all these amount was payable at a monthly instalment of Rs. 252.86 paisa; a rebate at the rate of 3% was also granted provided instalments are paid regularly; as the petitioner and the members of her family were houseless, she had no option but to enter into the aforementioned agreement, the terms of which were unfair and unreasonable, opposed to public policy and which is liable to be adjudged as void, a sum of Rs. 1500 was paid in advance by the petitioner, which was to be adjusted towards payment of price of the quarter and the premium in regard to appertaining land ; she made various representations for dispensing with the payment of 12% interest etc. but instead of accepting her reasonable requests the V.D.A. filed a complaint in the Court of City Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Varanasi for her eviction from the quarter in question ; against the impugned notice on 23-2-1988 she filed an objection (copy appended as Annexure-6) ; although the aforementioned proceeding is pending, the Amin from Tahsil Sadar, Varanasi from time to time comes to her and threatens with attachment of the quarter in question, if she does not pays the dues, the eviction proceeding is liable to be decided soon against her which will render her and the members of her family home less again, the breach is actionable under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and, therefore, the U.P. Legislature is not competent to enact the Act is respect of the same matter covered under the Central Indian Contract Act and to that extent they are invalid and void ; that the complaint is barred by the principles of promissory estoppel and hence this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated, inter alia, that vide Allotment Letter dated 30-3-1983 (Annexure-CA-1) she was allotted the flat in question, that on her request made through letter dated 20-10-83 (copy appended as Annexure-CA 2) that even though she was required to deposit advance money of Rs. 5175 she requested to deposit a sum of Rs. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated, inter alia, that vide Allotment Letter dated 30-3-1983 (Annexure-CA-1) she was allotted the flat in question, that on her request made through letter dated 20-10-83 (copy appended as Annexure-CA 2) that even though she was required to deposit advance money of Rs. 5175 she requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 1500 and for giving possession the request of the petitioner was partly accepted on the terms that she is permitted to deposit a. sum of Rs. 1500 and the balance amount in instalments and she should contact the officer for registration of the agreement which was informed by letter dated 21-10-88 (copy appended as Annexure-CA 3); the petitioner deposited the said money and entered into the agreement willingly and not under compulsion and took pos session of the flat in question ; as she did not deposit the arrears a suit for recovery and eviction was filed before the Prescribed Authority, which is pending ; the petitioner has concealed the income of her husband, who is an employee of L.I.C. which under the Rules is to be calculated with her income and thereby she does not come under the Economically Weaker Section Category, the cost of the flat was fixed on no profit no loss basis; the interest is being charged as per the Rules, which cannot be relaxed under the 20 Point Programme. 3. Sri G.C. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the grounds taken by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the amendment application have got merit and, accordingly, the desired relief be granted. 4. The facts speak for themselves and we do not find any substance in the grounds taken by the petitioner, whose pairiwikar in this writ petition is her husband who has sworn the affidavit whose income under the Rules has to be taken in account. The competency of the U.P. Legislature to enact the Act in question could not be shown by Sri Bhattacharya with reference to the items appearing in the State List to be vitiated. In our view the U.P. Legislature was competent to make special enactment which will exclude in the event of any inconsistency between it and the Central Act, the letter, though there is no inconsistency. 5. In our view the U.P. Legislature was competent to make special enactment which will exclude in the event of any inconsistency between it and the Central Act, the letter, though there is no inconsistency. 5. The allegations in regard to the terms of agreement being void is devoid of any force which the petitioner had voluntarily entered. This Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be justified in nullifying the express terms and conditions agreed to by the petitioner after paying a sum of Rs. 1500 only at the time of its execution and obtaining possession of the quarter in question. We do not see any justification for reducing the amount mentioned in the terms of agreement which the petitioner had agreed. 6. We do not find as to how the principles of promissory estoppel is sought to be invoked by the petitioner against the V.D.A. On the contrary we find that the petitioner took possession of the quarter in question on express terms and conditions after paying a sum of Rs. 1500 only but proceeded to make default by not honouring the terms and conditions which she had agreed with the Varanasi Development Authority. As we had allowed Sri Bhattacharya to address us even in regard to the amendments prayed for, we allow the amendment petition. 7. For the reasons aforementioned we dismiss this writ petition but in the peculiar facts and circumstances without making any order as to cost. 8. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri A.K. Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel of the Varanasi Development Authority, within one week from today, for information to and follow up action in accordance with law against the petitioner. Petition dismissed.