( 1 ) THE opposite party is the landlord of three shops. Each of the applicants is a tenant of one of the shops for which he paid an agreed rent of Rs. 10/- a month. The landlord being of opinion that neither the agreed rent nor the reasonable annual rent of these shops was adequate, brought a suit against each of his tenants under Sub-section (4) of Section 5, U. P. (Temporary) Control of rent and Eviction Act, 1947, claiming in each case that the reasonable annual rent of the accommodation let to the tenant should be enhanced. The learned Munsif by his order dated 13-12-1948, increased the rent in one case to Rs. 24/- a month and in the two other cases to Rs. 20/- a month. It is that order which is the subject of the present applications.

( 2 ) SUB-SECTION (4) of Section 5 reads as follows :

" (4) If the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, claims that the annual reasonable rent of any accommodation to which the Act applies, is inadequate or excessive, or if the tenant claims that the agreed rent is higher than the annual reasonable rent he may institute a suit for fixation of rent in the Court of the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction, if the annual rent claimed or payable is Rs, 500/- or less, and in the Court of the Civil Judge having territorial jurisdiction if it exceeds Rs. 500/-provided that the Court shall not vary the agreed rent unless it is satisfied that the transaction was unfair, and in the case of lease for fixed term made before 1-4-1942, that the term has expired. "

It is argued that the proviso to this section operates as a bar to a suit of a landlord who seeks for an increase in the reasonable annual rent in a case in which there already is an agreed rent between the parties unless the landlord can satisfy the Court that the agreement was unfair. That is the only point which arises in this case.

( 3 ) IN my opinion this sub-section makes provision for two classes of cases : first, cases in which a landlord or tenant seeks an enhancement or reduction of the reasonable annual rent (the sub-section refers to an "annual reasonable rent" but it is not in dispute that what is meant is the "reasonable annual rent" as defined in Section 2 (f) ), and, secondly, cases in which the tenant claims that the agreed rent is higher than the reasonable annual rent and that it should be reduced. It appears to me clear, on a plain reading of the sub-section, that the proviso has reference only to claims which come within the second class. The expression "agreed rent" in the proviso relates back to a similar phrase in the earlier part of the sub-section and links the proviso with the second of the two classes of cases to which I have referred. Some argument has been based upon the word "vary" in the phrase "vary the agreed rent", it being contended that had the proviso related only to the second class of case the word "reduce" would have been used. Had the phrase been "increase or reduce the agreed rent" the position would have been different, but in my opinion the use of the word "vary" instead of "reduce" does not throw doubt upon the meaning and effect of the proviso.

( 4 ) THESE applications must therefore be dismissed with costs. Agarwala, J.

( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (4) of Section 5 is rather clumsily worded. In order to understand the sub-section one has to bear in mind the definition of "reasonable annual rent" as given in Section 2 (f) of the act. Accommodations are divided into two classes, those constructed before 1-7-1946, those constructed after 1-7-1946. Reasonable annual rent in the case of an accommodation constructed after 1-7-194s, has to be determined by the District Magistrate under Section 3 (a ). When the accommodation was constructed before 1-7-1946, then one has to see whether the accommodation was assessed to municipal assessment. If it was assessed, the reasonable annual rent will be such assessment plus 25 per cent, thereon. In the case of a part of an accommodation being let out the pr