Sanjay Yadav, J.:-

This second appeal at the instance of plaintiff was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the courts below committed an error of law in not addressing itself to the controversy with regard to unreasonable and arbitrary hike/revision of rates of the disputed space and misdirected it in deciding the issue as to whether the defendants had authority in law to revise the rates of the disputed space?

(ii) Whether the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the defendants have explained as to under what circumstances the cost of booked space has been enhanced, is perverse?

(iii) Whether the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

(iv) Whether the lower appellate Court committed an error of law in rejecting the applications under order 41 rule 27 and under order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. preferred by the appellant/plaintiff?

Parties shall be referred to as they stood before the trial court.

2. Facts giving rise to the Appeal, are that in response to the advertisement published and brochure issued by the defendants, plaintiff booked a space; show-room