Rajiv Sharma, J.;- Heard. Smt. Satya Gupta-Opposite party no.1 preferred an application under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 72 in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow for the fixation of rent of her building in which the petitioner's office is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 4000/- per month. This application was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate vide its order dated 24.2.1993. Against this order Rent Appeal No. 20 of 1993 was preferred by the petitioner but the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow vide its judgment and order dated 15.3.1994. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition but no interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner. From the order sheet it comes out that this Court vide an order dated 15.3.1999 directed the petitioner to deposit the entire enhanced rent of the premises from 18th March, 1993 upto the date in this Hon'ble Court and the opposite party no.1 was permitted to with draw the same. A statement has been made at the Bar that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner have vacated the building in question and the rent was also deposited in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 15.3.1999. I have gone through the impugned orders and since concurrent findings have been recorded by both the court below, no good ground for interference is made out. The petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the findings so recorded in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is also provided that in case any amount is deposited in this Court, same shall be released in favour of opposite party no.1 without any security.