S. U. KHAN, J. List revised. No one appeared for the respondents. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner. 3. This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord respondent No. 2-Jwala Singh Tyagi since de ceased and survived by legal representatives on the ground of bonafide need un der section 21, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 143 of 1982. Prescribed authority, Meerut rejected the release application through judgment and order dated 10. 9. 1985. Against the said judgment and order Misc. Appeal No. 281 of 1985 was filed. VIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut through judgment and order dated 11. 1. 1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by prescribed authority and allowed the release ap plication of the landlord hence this writ petition. 4. Annexure-6 to the writ petition is a copy of release application. In para-6 of the said application it was stated that landlord husband and her wife both were residing at Delhi but they wanted to shift from Delhi and they required the house in dispute which is situate in Meerut. House in dispute con tains two rooms, store, verandah, court-yard, kitchen, latrine and bath-room. Rate of rent is Rs. 150/- per month. 5. Unfortunately landlord-husband and wife both have died during pen dency of writ petition hence need has vanished vide K. N. Agtarwal v. D. Devi, 2004 (2) ARC 764 (SC ). 6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed on this ground alone. Judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside on the ground that the persons for whose need release application was filed have died. 7. I have held in Khursheeda v. ADJ. , 2004 (2) ARC 64=2004 (54) ALR 177 and H. M. Kichlu v. ADJ. , 2004 (57) ALR 485 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building cov ered 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 reason able extent. 8. , 2004 (57) ALR 485 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building cov ered 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 reason able extent. 8. 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 be coming redundant in this sphere. This authority has recently been followed by the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) by Lrs. v. Union of India and another, (2008) 5 SCC 287 =2008 (71) ALR 499 part of Para-29 and Para-34 of which are quoted below :- "29. It is trite to say that legislation which may be quite reasonable and rationable and rationale at the time of its enactment may with the lapse of time and/or due to change of circumstances become arbitrary, un reasonable and violative of the doctrine of equity and even if the validity of such legislation may have been upheld at a given point of time, the Court may, in subsequent litigation, strike down the same if it is found that the rationale of classification has become non-existent. 34. In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (supra), the Court found that the criteria for de termination and fixation of rent b freezing or by pegging down of rent as on 1. 9. 1940 or as on first date of letting, had, with the passage of time become irrational and arbitrary but did not strike down the same on the ground that extended period of Bombay Rent Act was coming to an end on 31. 3. 1998. " 9. 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)]. 3. 1998. " 9. 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, I have also placed reliance upon the au thority of Supreme Court in "shangrila Food Products Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1996 SC 2410 paragraph-11 of which is quoted below :- "it is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction un der Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the par ties 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, 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 land lord, 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. AIR 1996 SC 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 un reasonable arbitrary advantage conferred upon him by the said Rent Control Act. 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 un reasonable 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 un-reasonable 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. " 10. Thereafter in H. M. Kitchlu v. A. D. J. , 2004 (57) ALR 485, I have held that the same prin ciple 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. 11. Meerut is very near to Delhi. Market price of real estate has now-a-days sky rocketed. Current rent of the accommodation in dispute must not be less than several thousands of rupees. Accordingly, rent is enhanced to Rs. 1,500/-per month with effect from September, 2008. No further amount over and above Rs. 1,500/- per month shall be payable by the tenant as water tax etc. Petition Allowed. .