JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2. The plaintiff-respondent, Smt. Chandrawati (now deceased and substituted by her legal heirs) was allotted a piece of land at Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad vide lease deed dated 24.11.1975 for a period of 90 years. As per the terms of lease deed it commences from 07.12.1964. It also contemplated that the allottee shall raise construction and built house thereon by 31.12.1975. 3. The case set up by defendant was that possession was not handed over to plaintiff and for the first time a demand for lease rent, levy charges, chowkidar charges and interest was raised in 1987, whereagainst plaintiff raised objection and sought to pay only lease rent. It was not accepted by defendant-appellant and a notice was issued to plaintiff seeking cancellation of her allotment. She instituted Original Suit No. 993 of 1987 seeking declaration in respect of property in dispute, for possession, and also for mandatory injunction, restraining defendant from canceling her allotment and proceeding to allot the disputed land to a third party. 4. The suit was decreed by Trial Court vide judgment dated 28.05.1998, whereagainst defendant-appellant's Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2002 has also been dismissed by Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 19.12.2012. 5. Before this Court learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that lease deed dated 24.11.1975 did not contain any provision entitling appellant to demand levy charges or Chowkidar charges etc. except of lease rent. He also could not place any provision, existed in 1975, or immediately thereafter, or till the notice was issued in 1987, empowering defendant-appellant to levy such charges from appellant. 6. Besides above, a wholly arbitrary and illegal condition contemplating an impossible task upon allottee, was mentioned in lease deed dated 24.11.1975, that the house shall be built and completed by 31.12.1975, i.e., within one month and nine days from the date of execution of lease deed, particularly when according to defendant-appellant, possession of land in dispute was not formally handed over to plaintiff. 7. The action of appellant was apparently illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational. Therefore, appreciating entire evidence, available on record, and the relevant provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the courts below have found that demand and action sought to be taken by defendant-appellant was wholly unauthorised and illegal. 7. The action of appellant was apparently illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational. Therefore, appreciating entire evidence, available on record, and the relevant provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the courts below have found that demand and action sought to be taken by defendant-appellant was wholly unauthorised and illegal. The suit has rightly been decreed and defendant's appeal has also been dismissed by a well reasoned and well discussed order. 8. Though the appellant has sought to give shape to certain legal questions alleging that the same have arisen in this matter, but I find that the questions are already covered by various provisions and precedents of this Court as well as Apex Court and it was only a case of appreciation of evidence and application of settled principles, which has rightly been done by courts below. 9. In my view, no substantial question of law has arisen in this matter. In fact it is high time, when defendant-appellant should set right their own house and endeavor to behove in a more responsible and lawful manner than just to victimize the public at large and prolonging avoidable litigation. 10. Since no substantial question of law has arisen, this appeal is dismissed.