ORDER : Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, JJ. IA.No. 106/2003 : It is recorded that the counsel appearing on behalf of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority has been served with a copy of the IA.No.106/2003. 2. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, and on the basis the compromise decree as stood revived by reason of the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 17th April, 2003 in CMWP.No.14294/2002 M/s Technology Park Ltd. v. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, will submit any plan that it wishes to obtain sanction in terms of the compromise decree to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority within a period of four weeks. 3. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority will consider the same and give its response thereto within a period of four weeks thereafter. In the event, the response is in the negative, reasons therefor may be given. 4. The copy of the report of the C.V.C. submitted in a sealed cover be made available to the parties. The objections thereto, if any, within a period of four weeks. In IA NO.103/2003: 5. This application has been filed by Tejwant Singh for deposit of increased rental in respect of premises, 3, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, which has been purchased by the Embassy of Israel, the earstwhile tenant, subsequently. According to the application, as the purchase price fetched was 25 crores, on the basis of 1%, the Embassy was liable to pay 25 lakhs per month. 6. At the hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has stated that the original lease agreement between the parties expired on 1st October 2001. It is contended that in the past as and when earlier leases expired, the Embassy and the owner used to revise the rent with an increase of 15% of the earlier rent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Embassy has drawn our attention to the orders dated 30.3.2001, 25.9.2001 and 21.7.2003 by which this Court had permitted the Embassy to continue in possession even after the expiry of the lease. 8. We are of the view that the application of the Tejwant Singh cannot be accepted. The basis upon which the increase is sought for in the application is not pressed during the hearing. We, therefore, need not consider that submission. 9. 8. We are of the view that the application of the Tejwant Singh cannot be accepted. The basis upon which the increase is sought for in the application is not pressed during the hearing. We, therefore, need not consider that submission. 9. As far as the submission from the bar is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that there was a 15% increase every time the earlier leases expired. Besides, the percentage of increase of rent could be determined either by way of consensus or by statute. In the absence of either, the rent which is prevalent when the lease expired could be taken to continue particularly when the Embassy was allowed to continue in occupation under orders of this Court. The I.A. is accordingly dismissed. In IA NO.111/2004: 10. Issue notice to the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator will file a complete statement of the assets of the Company liquidation according to the records of the Company within a period of four weeks. List the matter 8 weeks hence alongwith the other matters. Court Masters.