Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39044-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6946 of 2025 Petitioner :- Madhuri Dwivedi And 32 Others Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vibhu Rai Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vibhu Rai counsel for the respondents. This petition involves an identical controversy which has been decided in Writ C No. 2355 of 2025 connected with Writ C No.5837 of 2025. The final order in those petitions is quoted below:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vibhu Rai counsel for the respondents. These two petitions involve an identical controversy and have been heard together and is being decided by common order. When the Writ C No.2355 of 2025 initially came up for consideration the following order was passed on 24.01.2025:- 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 with regard to the shop in question which was let out to the petitioner pursuant to the registered agreement executed on 4.1.2012, the tenancy starting from 9.12.2011. The contention is that in terms of Clause 4 of the agreement, enhancement at the rate of 25 percent could be effected every five years and the term of tenancy was specified to be a maximum of 15 years. It is stated that the order impugned arbitrarily enhanced the rate of rent which is at complete variance to the aforesaid agreement. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent- Nagar Nigam has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the agreement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner contains an arbitration clause. 3. However, as per the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the arbitration agreement provides for appointment of the Municipal Commissioner as the arbitrator which is he says would be contrary to the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks an adjournment to enable her to study the matter and to seek appropriate instructions. 5. List this matter after two weeks as fresh. 6. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the property in dispute provided he continues to pay the admitted rent." Today Sri Vibhu Rai learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of instructions has stated that the demand being raised by the Nagar Nigam shall be revisited and only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners an order shall be passed. Till such time a fresh order is passed no recovery shall be made from the petitioners on the basis of the demand already raised. In view of the statement made, in our opinion nothing further is required to be done by this Court. Both the petitions stand disposed of directing the respondents to proceed in accordance with the statement made by Sri Vibhu Rai counsel for the respondent which has been recorded above." Under the circumstances the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order quoted above. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Himanshu Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad