JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri M.L. Maurya, holding brief of Sri K.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar so far it relates to putting the condition to pay rent of Rs. 600/- per month while granting the interim protection to the petitioner in Rent Appeal No. 112 of 2014 (Shyam Bapu Gupta Vs. Om Prakash Shukla). 3. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no material before the learned District Judge to fix Rs. 600/- per month rent, in place of Rs. 60/- per month. In his submissions, ten times rent has been enhanced without there being any material available on record before the court concerned for enhancing the rent. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking into the location of the accommodation in the Kanpur Nagar, which is a very busy city of the State, and the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Fedral Motors (P) Ltd. ( 2005 (1) SCC 705 ), Ganga Prasad Vs. M/s Hanif Opticians ( 2005(2) ARC 723 ), Rajeshwari (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Prema Agarwal (2005(1)ARC 526), Hari Mohan Kichlu Vs. VIIth A.D.J. Muzaffarnagar and Others ( 2004 (2) ARC 652 ), Khurshida Vs. A.D.J. (2004(2)ARC 64) and Smt. Zohra Vs. IVth A.D.J. Jhansi ( 2006 (63) ALR 643 ), I do not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.