ORDER Seth, J.
1. This is a defendant's application in revision arising out of a suit brought Under Section. 5(4), U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III [3] of 1947) for fixation of rent. The defendant was occupying the accommodation on an agreed rental of Rs. 15/- per month. The lease was for a period of three years. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the agreed rent, and, therefore, he instituted the suit. The Court below has fixed the rent at Rs. 18/- per month.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the suit was not maintainable, because if a landlord desires to enhance the rent, he may do so by giving a notice Under Section 5 (2) of the Act, and that a suit is maintainable only when a landlord claims that the reasonable annual rent is too inadequate or when a tenant claims that the reasonable annual rent is excessive.
3. The learned counsel has overlooked another portion of Clause (4), according to which, where there is no municipal assessment, a suit may be brought for fixation of rent. This is so, because Clause (2) of the section would not apply to such a case. Clause (2) provides that a landlord may enhance rent to the extent of reasonable annual rent. 'Reasonable annual rent' has been defined with reference to municipal assessment. Where, therefore, there is no municipal assessment, there can also be no 'reasonable annual rent' as defined in the Act. It, therefore, follows that in such a case a landlord has no right to enhance the rent by giving a notice.
4. Clause (4) makes a provision for this contingency. In my opinion, therefore, there is no force in this contention and the suit was maintainable. It is to be noted that this case has to be decided according to the provisions of the Act as it stood before its amendment.
5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is, that Clause (4) was not intended to apply to those oases where the tenancy was for a fixed term. I have been unable to discover any words in Clause (4) which exclude its application to such cases.
6. Learned counsel then contends, that the policy of the Act is to help tenants and that policy would be defeated if rents agreed upon are enhanced during the period when that agreement subsists. He, therefore, contends that it should be held that Clause (4) does not apply to such cases. Whatever the policy of the Act taken as a whole may be, the policy lying behind the legislation contained in Clause (4) of Section 5 is evident from the following words taken from that clause: "Provided that the Court shall not fix the rent lower than the contractual rent, if any". This is a clear legislation to the effect, that the agreed rent may be enhanced bat shall not be reduced. In my opinion, therefore, there is no force in the last contention of the learned counsel either.
7. For the reasons indicated above, there seems to be no force in this application in revision. It is accordingly dismissed, but there shall be no order as to cost as the opposite party is not represented.