S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenants writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 2, Prabhat Kumar Pandey filed S. C. C. Suit No. 2 of 1993 against tenants petitioners for eviction. In the plaint, it was stated that provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable on the building in dispute. Tenanted building in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 12/- per month. It was also stated that shop in dispute had been sub-let to Kishori lal by the tenants petitioners. Ground of material alteration was also taken. It was also stated that rent from July, 1992 till October, 1992 had not been paid. It was also stated that at the time of filing of the suit, valuation of the shop must be around Rs. 1 lac, hence rent must be Rs. 10,000/- per year. Notice of termination of tenancy was sent on 27. 11. 1992. Petitioners were contin uing as tenants since before 1983. However condition of the tenanted accommo dation was not good, hence on 21. 2. 1983, an agreement took place between the parties under which tenants surrendered a portion of the building in their ten ancy occupation and the remaining portion was repaired by the landlords. On this ground, it was contended that new tenancy should be deemed to have come into existence when building in dispute was reconstructed after 21. 2. 1983. It was further pleaded by the landlord that ship in dispute must be deemed to have been newly constructed after 21. 2. 1983. The Trial Court did not believe that version and held that in the very first paragraph of the agreement dated 21. 2. 1983 (copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition), it was stated that the tenants were continuing as tenants for about 40 years. Trial Court further held that the portion, which remained in tenancy occupation of the tenant af ter the agreement of 21. 2. 1983, was only repaired. In the agreement also word repair was used. Accordingly, Trial Court held that provisions of the Act were applicable on the building in dispute. In respect of allegation of sublet ting, Trial Court held that there was no subletting and alleged sub-tenant was servant of the tenant. 3. 2. 1983, was only repaired. In the agreement also word repair was used. Accordingly, Trial Court held that provisions of the Act were applicable on the building in dispute. In respect of allegation of sublet ting, Trial Court held that there was no subletting and alleged sub-tenant was servant of the tenant. 3. In respect of default, Trial Court held that on the first date of hearing tenant had deposited the entire rent with interest and cost of the suit, hence he was entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act. Accordingly, J. S. C. C. Gorakhpur dismissed the suit through judgment and decree dated 5. 8. 1996, however landlord was held entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant. 4. Against the said judgment and decree, landlord respondent filed Civil Revision No. 5 of 1996. A. D. J. /special Judge (Anti-corruption), Gorakhpur al lowed the revision through judgment and order dated 9. 12. 1997, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction also, hence this writ petition. 5. Lower Revisional Court held that fresh tenancy started w. e. f. February, 1983. Revisional Court in para 18 of its judgment held that in 1983, a new agreement was executed in between the parties, in which it was mentioned that on the new building U. P. Act No. 3 of 1972 would not be applicable. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is the copy of said agreement dated 21. 2. 1983. In the agreement, no such thing has been mentioned. Lower Revisional Court also held that if rent of a building is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not be applicable. Firstly, said amendment (section 2 (1) (g) was incorporated during pendency of the suit. Secondly, that was not applica ble as rent was only Rs. 12/- per month and thirdly, during argument in this writ petition, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent categorically stated that he was not pressing the point of non-applicability of the Act on the ground that rent of the building is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, Revisional Court held that on the first date of hearing entire rent etc. had been deposited. 6. 2,000/- per month. However, Revisional Court held that on the first date of hearing entire rent etc. had been deposited. 6. Basically, the revision was allowed and suit for eviction was decreed on the ground that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. I do not agree with the findings of the Revisional Court. In the agreement, it was categori cally mentioned that half of the property in tenancy occupation of the peti tioners was being surrendered by the tenant and the remaining half was to be left in the tenancy occupation of the tenant. It was also mentioned therein that landlord would place new tin-roof and would repair the building. Exact word used in the agreement, which is in Hindi is marammat, which squarely means repair. 7. Moreover, if old building in tenancy occupation of tenant is vacated by him under the agreement, that landlord would reconstruct the same and han dover new building to the old tenant, Rent Control Act will continue to apply to the newly constructed portion and it cannot be said that as the building has been constructed anew, hence Rent Control Act, which was applicable on the old building, will not apply. This principle is recognised by section 24 (2) of the Act. If building is released under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act on the ground that it is in dilapidated condition land thereafter new building is constructed and handed over to the tenant, the Act continues to apply to the new building by virtue of section 24 (2) of the Act. Exactly, the same principle will apply, when tenant agrees to deliver possession of the tenanted accommodation to the land lord for reconstruction and landlord reconstructs and handovers possession of the newly constructed portion to the tenant. In the instant case, there was not even reconstruction. It was only a case of repair and replacing tin-shed as roof. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order of Revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit for eviction is restored. 9. In the instant case, there was not even reconstruction. It was only a case of repair and replacing tin-shed as roof. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order of Revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit for eviction is restored. 9. I have held in Khursheeda v. ADJ, 2004 (55) ALR 586 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. 10. 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 undeer 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. 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 (SC) 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 rationale at the time of its enactment may with the lapse of time and/or due to change of circumstances become arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the doctrine of equity and even if the validity of such legisla tion may have been upheld at a given point of time, the Court may, in sub sequent 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 by freezing or by pegging down of rent as on 1. 9. 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 by 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. " 11. 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 reported 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 un fair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain be fore 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. 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. 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. " 12. 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. 13. Property in dispute is a shop, which is situate in Gorakhpur, which has become Nagar Nigam 14 years before. Existing rent of Rs. 12/- per month is virtually as well as actually no rent. It is rather ridiculous. Accordingly, it is directed that w. e. f. October, 2008 onwards tenant shall pay rent to the land lord @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. No further amount as water tax etc. over and above Rs. 1,000/- per month shall be payable by the tenant to the landlord. Petition Allowed. .