JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is landlord’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord-petitioner against tenant respondent on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 117 of 1994. Property in dispute is a shop, situate at Abu Lane, Meerut, rent of which is Rs. 1150/- per month. In the release application, it was stated that even though petitioner was aged about 80 years but he was unemployed and he intended to start retail business from the shop in dispute. Release application was rejected by Prescribed Authority/ J.S.C.C., Meerut on 24.9.1998. The said order was affirmed in P.A. Appeal No. 406 of 1998, which was dismissed by A.D.J., Court No. 3, Meerut on 22.9.2006, hence this writ petition. 3. During pendency of writ petition, original petitioner landlord died, hence his need came to an end. Additional need of no other person was further set up in the release application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has also filed substitution application on behalf of the son of the original petitioner, which has been allowed, has categorically stated that need did not survive after the death of original petitioner-landlord. 4. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 5. 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 relief already granted by the Courts below, writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Same principle may be applied to the instant case also. However, learned Counsel for the tenant respondent has vehemently argued that while dismissing writ petition of landlord, rent cannot be enhanced. 6. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority of M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 602 , where it was held that it was essential to provide for periodical enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Acts. 6. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority of M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 602 , where it was held that it was essential to provide for periodical enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court has further held that frozen rents are giving rise to lawlessness and landlords out of frustration are approaching muscle man to get the premises vacated and Courts of law are becoming redundant in this sphere. Under U.P. Rent Control Act, there is no provision of enhancement of rent after October, 1972 [Except where landlord is public charitable or public religious institution (Section 9-A) or Government is tenant (section 21(8)]. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I have also placed reliance upon the authority of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 2410 Shangrila Food Products Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, paragraph-11 of which is quoted below : “It is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief.” Thereafter in Para-8 of the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I held as under : “Rent Control Act confers a reasonable advantage upon the tenant of protection against arbitrary eviction. Tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted except on specific grounds like bonafide need of the landlord, arrears of rent, subletting and material alteration etc. This advantage is also coupled with the advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent. The latter advantage cannot be said to be either reasonable or equitable. Tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted except on specific grounds like bonafide need of the landlord, arrears of rent, subletting and material alteration etc. This advantage is also coupled with the advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent. The latter advantage cannot be said to be either reasonable or equitable. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of S.F.P. v. L.I.C. (A.I.R 1996 S.C 2410), has laid down that while granting relief to a party the writ Court can very well ask the said party to shed the unfair advantage which it gained under the impugned order. By slightly extending the said doctrine it may safely be held that while granting the reasonable advantage to the tenant conferred upon him by the Rent Control Act the tenant may be asked to shed the unreasonable arbitrary advantage conferred upon him by the said Rent Control Act. The writ Court therefore while granting or maintaining the relief against arbitrary ejectment to the tenant can very well ask the tenant to shed the unreasonable benefit of the Rent Control Act granted to him in the form of immunity against enhancement of rent, however inadequate the rent might be. Tenant will have to shed the undue advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Act to barter his protection from arbitrary eviction provided for by the said Act.” 8. Thereafter in H.M. Kitchlu v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) A.R.C. 652, I have held that the same principle of enhancement of rent to a reasonable extent may be made applicable while dismissing the writ petition of the landlord for the reason that by doing so writ Court approves the protection of Rent Control Act granted to the tenant by the Courts below. 9. Learned Counsel for the tenant has cited an interim order of the Supreme Court dated 8.1.2007 in S.L.P. No. 21518 of 2006 (Ishrat Alia v. Shyam Bihari Lal). In a landlord’s writ petition, an Hon’ble Judge of this Court by interim order had enhanced rent. The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the said order by the aforesaid order dated 8.1.2007 on the ground that through interim order passed in a writ petition of the landlord, rent could not be enhanced. 10. However, Supreme Court did not say that while deciding the writ petition finally, rent could not be enhanced. 11. The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the said order by the aforesaid order dated 8.1.2007 on the ground that through interim order passed in a writ petition of the landlord, rent could not be enhanced. 10. However, Supreme Court did not say that while deciding the writ petition finally, rent could not be enhanced. 11. Learned Counsel for the tenant has further argued that the only scope of enhancement of rent for a writ Court is while granting stay order against eviction to the tenant in a pending writ petition filed by the tenant against eviction order passed by the Courts below as held by Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors, 2005 (1) SCC 705 . I do not agree with this contention. Even apart from this contingency while finally 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. 12. Learned Counsel for the landlord has shown current circle rate of the area in question (Abu Lane, Meerut) circulated by the Collector under Stamp Act/Rules. According to the said circle rates, market value of the commercial buildings of Abu Lane is Rs. 33,000/- per sq. meter and rent is shown to be Rs. 200/- per sq. meter per month. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However it is directed that w.e.f. December, 2007, onwards, tenant shall pay rent to the landlord respondent @ Rs. 5,000/- inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount shall be payable by the tenant to the landlord over and above Rs. 5000/- per month. 14. However, it is further directed that in spite of rent having been enhanced to more than Rs. 2000/- per month, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 shall continue to apply to the building in dispute. Supreme Court in Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam AIR 1971 SC 2213 has held that benefit of clause of exemption from operation of Rent Control Act can be waived by the landlord. Similarly, the Court while enhancing the rent to more than Rs. Supreme Court in Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam AIR 1971 SC 2213 has held that benefit of clause of exemption from operation of Rent Control Act can be waived by the landlord. Similarly, the Court while enhancing the rent to more than Rs. 2,000/- per month can waive the application of exemption clause provided under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act., whereunder the Act does not apply to a building, rent of which is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. ————