Arguments heard. There is a dispute of enhancement of ground rent by the Chief Executive Officer, HP Housing Board, Shimla. We have perused the allotment letter. Its para five runs as follows:- he lease in respect of the land under the plot shall commence with effect from the date of issue of this letter by the Shimla Development Authority and you shall pay from the commencement of this lease the ground rent calculated on the premium of the land @ 2 per annum for the first 33 years @ 3 per annum for the next 33 years and @ 5% per annum for the remaining 33 years of the lease. However, the competency to change the above said rate lies with the Shimla Development Authority and these rates are subject to change as and when considered necessary by the Shimla Development Authority. The ground rent shall be payable by you to the Shimla Development Authority in advance automatically and regularly every year on or before 9th of January, failing which, without prejudice to any other right or remedy of the Shimla Development Authority, the allotment of the plot shall be liable to be terminated and you shall be liable to be evicted from the plot by following the procedure prescribed under rules. The ground rent for the first 33 years shall be Rs. 5,05,00 per annum. The Petitioner has picked up a conflict with the fact that the Respondent has no power to enhance the ground rent. He also argues that the rent was not enhanced in accordance with law. We see no force in his arguments. The State Commission vide its Order dated 16.04.2012 came to the following conclusion:- oth in the letter of allotment Annexure A-5 (page 135 of consumer complaint No. 410 of 2002) as also the lease deed Annexure A-4, it is specifically provided that the ground rent is subject to change as and when felt necessary by the respondents. Undoubtedly, the contention smells of arbitrariness because of the basis of change that may be carried out by the respondents is not spell out either in the allotment letter or the lease deed, but their impugned action of revising the ground rent is not arbitrary. It is based on increase in the cost of raw land and the right to revise the ground rent had been reserved to themselves by the respondents by incorporating specific condition in the letter of allotment, as also the lease deed. We have no ground to disagree with the State Commission. It must be borne in mind that with the enhancement of rate of land under the Land Acquisition Act, the increase in the ground rent will necessary follow. Petition is meritless and the same is, therefore, dismissed.