JUDGMENT : (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) : By means of present writ petition, petitioners have sought quashing of impugned order dated 15.10.2022 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No.33 of 2022 as well as the order dated 07.04.2021 passed by Prescribed Authority/District Magistrate, Dehradun in case no.2/2013. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were tenant in the property in question since 1950; that, the original owner sold the property to the respondent/landlord in 1993; that, on 01.02.1996 the respondent/landlord and the petitioners/tenants entered an agreement (Annexure No.5) wherein it was agreed that after renovation of the shop, petitioners/tenants would re-enter in the tenanted premises and the tenancy shall remain the same; that, the character of the tenancy shall not be changed rather the old tenancy will continue uninterruptedly at the same rate of rent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants would further submit that respondent/landlord filed an application before the Prescribed Authority/District Magistrate under Section 21 (8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Tent & Eviction) Act, 1972 for enhancement of monthly rent, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment/order dated 07.04.2021 thereby fixing the rent @ Rs. 13,650/- per month from the date of filing the application i.e. 01.07.2013. 4. He would further submit that against the judgment/order passed by Prescribed Authority, the petitioners/tenants as well as the respondent/landlord filed appeals before the learned District Judge; that, learned District Judge heard both the appeals and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/landlord whereas the appeal filed by the petitioners/tenant was dismissed and the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 18,655/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants would submit that as per clause 4 and 5 of the agreement executed between the parties (Annexure No.5) there was an understanding that the rent shall remain the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to clauses 4 and 5 of the agreement, which reads as under:- ^^4- izFkei{k }kjk lq/kkj] lEo/kZu vkfn ds mijkUr mijksDr nqdku f}rh;i{k dks okfil feyus ij Hkh nqdku dh fdjks;nkjh iqjkuh gh pyrh pyh vk;h le>h tk;sxhA f}rh; i{k ;w0ih0 vf/kfu;e 13 o"kZ 1972 ds lEcfU/kr izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr laj{k.k ikus ds iw.kZ vf/kdkjh gksaxs vkSj jgsaxs vkSj mudks blds vUrxZr izkIr gksxkA 5- mijksDr nqdku f}rh; i{k dks feyus ij nqdku dk fdjk;k ;FkkiwoZ jgsxkA^^ 6. Learned counsel would further submit that the plea of the petitioners regarding clause 4 and 5 of agreement was not at all considered by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court, therefore, the impugned judgments are unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Perused the record in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants would fairly admit that had this agreement (Annexure No.5) not been executed between the parties the Prescribed Authority and the First Appellate Court would have got the jurisdiction to enhance the rate of rent, however, when there was an agreement with specific clause that the rent would remain the same there was no occasion for the Prescribed Authority and, consequently, the First Appellate Court to enhance the rate of rent. 9. In the considered view of this Court, there is only limited question whether by execution of the agreement (Annexure No.5) the Prescribed Authority and the First Appellant Court were precluded from entering into the jurisdiction to enhance the rent. 10. In view of this Court, Clause 4 and 5 of the agreement (Annexure No.5) does not create any new right in favour of the petitioners/tenants. Clause 4 and 5 of Annexure No.5 merely reiterates the existing state of facts and there was no creation of any new tenancy whatsoever. However, admittedly, the agreement was executed between the parties on 01.02.1996 as per which the petitioners were tenants in the demised property @ 50/- per month and there was mention in the agreement as to for which period this agreement will exist. After execution of the agreement, the respondent/landlord did not enhance the rent for about 16 years and it is in 2013 itself that he filed the application for enhancing the rent. 11. The tenanted premises is a commercial property and the rent of Rs.50/- per month is not justified in the current scenario. As such, the respondent/landlord was constrained to file the application for enhancement of rent after a period of about 16 years from the date of agreement. The respondent/landlord certainly has a right to enjoy the fruits of his property. In the considered opinion of the Court, there is no error in the impugned judgment/order passed by the First Appellate Court and rate of rent has been rightly increased to Rs.18,655/- per month. 12. The respondent/landlord certainly has a right to enjoy the fruits of his property. In the considered opinion of the Court, there is no error in the impugned judgment/order passed by the First Appellate Court and rate of rent has been rightly increased to Rs.18,655/- per month. 12. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Same is accordingly dismissed in limine.