JUDGMENT : - 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 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that on the prayer of the petitioner certain quarters were allotted on monthly rental on certain terms and conditions. A perusal of the impugned notices as contained 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 appears 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 further appears that the tenant was held liable to pay the additional rent on account of certain excess construction made on the allotted quarters at the rate of residential/commercial rates. In these back-drop the tenants were informed that they should renew their tenancy by filling appropriate 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 aforementioned notices. 3. 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 arbitrarily and since the petitioners belong to economically weaker section of the Society the reliefs prayed for be granted. 4. MR. Lalji Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kanpur Development 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 averments made in the notices have not been disputed by the petitioner. 5. IN this backdrop the question before us is as to whether we will be justified in granting the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Our answer is a definite no. Mr. Sinha, in reply very fairly con ceded the factual position that the averments made in the notices have not been disputed by the petitioner. 5. IN this backdrop the question before us is as to whether we will be justified in granting the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Our answer is a definite no. Since the petitioners have not repudiated the correctness of the facts stated in the impugned notices we will not at all be justified in granting any relief to them. 6. IN the result this writ petition is dismissed. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Vishwa Jyoti Sahai, learned brief holder for the State, within a week for its communication to the authority concerned. Petition dismissed.