JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This is tenant’s writ petition. The tenant is adamant to protract her possession indefinitely. Rent Control Act protects the possession of the tenant in certain contingencies. However some times it is misused by tenants to protract their tenancy. Since the time of filing of the release application by landlord respondent No. 3 Yogendra Singh on the ground of bona fide need, petitioner is continuously harping on the fact that she is a widow, even though she has got several sons who must be of middle age by now. Weak people do require some extra protection however they cannot be permitted to use their weakness as sword. It can be used only as a shield. 2. Landlord respondent No. 3 Yogendra Singh initiated proceedings for release/eviction against tenant petitioner on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. case No. 2 of 1980. Property in dispute from which eviction of tenant petitioner was sought is a house, rent of which is only Rs. 12/- per month. Release application was allowed by prescribed authority, Jhansi and appeal of the tenant filed against the said order was also dismissed by IVth Additional District Judge, Jhansi on 17.5.1984. The said judgment and orders were challenged through writ petition No. 7928 of 1984. This Court decided the said writ petition on 11.4.1985. Findings of bona fide need of landlord was confirmed. However both the judgments of prescribed authority and appellate Court were set-aside through judgment dated 11.4.1985 on the ground of comparative hardship. Through the said order matter was remanded to the prescribed authority only to consider the question of part release. It was also directed that prescribed authority should himself inspect the premises in dispute. Thereafter prescribed authority inspected the premises in dispute and placed on record its inspection report dated 9.7.1988. Thereafter release application was allowed only in part by prescribed authority/Civil Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 19.12.1989. Two rooms of the accommodation in dispute were left in the tenancy of tenant petitioner. Open land 40 feet by 20 feet was released in favour of the landlord. Thereafter release application was allowed only in part by prescribed authority/Civil Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 19.12.1989. Two rooms of the accommodation in dispute were left in the tenancy of tenant petitioner. Open land 40 feet by 20 feet was released in favour of the landlord. It was further directed that the existing latrine in the tenancy occupation of tenant petitioner should stand released in favour of the landlord on the condition that landlord should construct latrine and bathroom at another place which was left in the tenancy occupation of the tenant. 3. There could not be a better order in favour of the petitioner than the one passed by the prescribed authority. However she did not feel satisfied by the said order and filed R.C. Appeal No. 5 of 1990. District Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 9.2.1993, dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition. 4. The Court is rather aghast at the tenacity of the tenant and her outright refusal to part with even open piece of land. Absolutely no error has been pointed out in the impugned orders. I find the order of the prescribed authority as confirmed by the appellate Court not only perfectly legal but eminently just. Tenant had not made any efforts to search alternative accommodation even though she was having several sons. Courts below rightly pointed out that those sons must be earning and in a position to take another proper house on rent. 5. Writ petition is therefore dismissed with Rs. 5,000/- cost. 6. Rent of Rs. 12/- per month for two rooms house in Jhansi is virtually as well as actually no rent. 7. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) ARC 64 and H.M. Kichlu v. A.D.J., 2004(2) ARC 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the Courts below, writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Even otherwise writ Court is empowered to pass such orders, which are essential to adjust the equities in between the parties. There is no provision under Rent Control Act for periodical enhancement of rent, which is not only unjust but also illegal as pointed out by the Supreme Court in M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 602 . There is no provision under Rent Control Act for periodical enhancement of rent, which is not only unjust but also illegal as pointed out by the Supreme Court in M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 602 . Highly inadequate rent is the main cause of litigation in between the landlords and tenants. 8. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from February 2006 onwards, tenant petitioner shall pay rent of the portion, which has been left in her tenancy occupation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Petition Dismissed. ———