JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 05.02.2015 as well as interim order dated 23.12.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Hon'ble the High Court has no jurisdiction to impose the condition of increase in the rent and in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Niyas Ahmad Khan vs. Mahmood Ahmat Ullah Khan and another reported in [ 2009 (27) LCD 1415 ], in which Hon'ble the Apex Court in paras-8 and 9 has held as under: - "8. We should however note the distinction between cases where a writ petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction and seeking stay of execution thereof, and cases where a writ petition is filed by the landlord challenging the rejection of a petition for eviction. What we have stated above is with reference to writ petitions filed by landlords. In writ petitions filed by tenants, while granting stay of execution of the order of eviction pending disposal of writ petition, the High Court has the discretion to impose reasonable conditions to safeguard the interests of the landlord. But even in such cases the High Court cannot obviously impose conditions which are ex facie arbitrary and oppressive thereby making the order of stay illusory. When a tenant files a writ petition challenging the order of eviction, the High Court may reject the writ petition if it finds no merit in the case of the tenant; or in some cases, the High Court may admit the writ petition but refuse to grant stay of execution, in which event, the tenant may be evicted, but can claim restoration of possession if he ultimately succeeds in the writ petition; or in some cases, the High Court finding the case fit for admission, may grant stay of eviction, with or without conditions, so that status quo is maintained till the matter is decided. Where the High Court chooses to impose any conditions in regard to stay, such conditions should not be unreasonable or oppressive or in terrorem. Where the High Court chooses to impose any conditions in regard to stay, such conditions should not be unreasonable or oppressive or in terrorem. Adopting some arbitrary figure as prevailing market rent without any basis and directing the tenant to pay absurdly high rent would be considered oppressive and unreasonable even when such direction is issued as a condition for stay of eviction. High Court should desist from doing so. 9. To sum up, in writ petitions by landlord against rejection of eviction petitions, there is no scope for issue of any interim direction to the tenant to pay higher rent. But in writ petitions by tenants against grant of eviction, the High Court may, as a condition of stay, direct the tenant to pay higher rent during the pendency of the writ petition. This again is subject to two limitations. First, the condition should be reasonable. Second, there should not be any bar in the respective State rent control legislation in regard to such increase in rent. Be that as it may." 4. In the present case, the rent has been enhanced by the lower court relying upon the case of Ganga Prasad vs. M/s Hanif Opticians and others reported in 2005 (2) ARC 723 and Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 .? The said rent has not been enhanced by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.? Therefore, the law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. 5. The order regarding enhancement of the rent was passed by the learned court below on 23.12.2013 regarding which the recall application was moved by the petitioner, which has also been rejected by the order dated 05.02.2015.? The said order dated 23.12.2013 was passed after hearing both the parties and the said order was not challenged by way of revision by the petitioner.? In compliance of order dated 23.12.2013, the petitioner has also paid the enhanced rent.? As far as relationship of the landlord and the tenants is concerned, the Petition No.27 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner before this Court and this Court by order dated 15.01.2015 dismissed the said writ petition, and it has been held that the application of the tenants for stay of the proceedings under Section 10 C.P.C. was rightly rejected.? As far as relationship of the landlord and the tenants is concerned, the Petition No.27 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner before this Court and this Court by order dated 15.01.2015 dismissed the said writ petition, and it has been held that the application of the tenants for stay of the proceedings under Section 10 C.P.C. was rightly rejected.? It has also been held that the landlord has purchased the property in the year 2005 and the notice was also given to the tenants, but the tenants never came forward with the case that they are the owners of the property in dispute.? This court has further held that the petitioner started setting up himself that the disputed property is enemy property and admitted himself as tenant but at the same time started claiming himself as owner on the basis of oral gift.?? This court has also observed that the alleged revision should be disposed of expeditiously within six months.?? It appears that the petitioner is taking self contradictory pleas just to delay the proceedings of the case. 6. Learned court below has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and has come to the conclusion that there is no justification to set aside the order dated 23.12.2013. 7. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned order.? The writ petition is misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. 8. The writ petition is dismissed.