JUDGMENT

V.G. Oak, J. - This civil revision by a defendant arises out of a suit for fixation of rent and for arrears of rent. Kanhaiya Lal filed the suit against Vidya Ram with these allegations. The plaintiff is the owner of a certain shop at Agra. The defendant has been occupying the shop as plaintiff's tenant. The defendant got the rent of the shop fixed at Rs. 3/- per month under Section 3-A of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The rent so fixed is inadequate. The fair rent for the shop is Rs. 25/- per month. The defendant had not paid rent for the shop for several years. The plaintiff therefore requested the court to fix the rent of the shop at Rs. 25/- per month. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for Rs. 300/- on account of arrears of rent for one year at the rate of Rs. 25/- p.m.

2. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the annual reasonable rent fixed under Section 3-A of the Act was fair. The defendant also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. The suit was tried by the 1st Additional Munsif of Agra. He held that the fair rent for the shop is Rs. 25/- p.m. He fixed the rent accordingly. The court also passed a decree in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 300/- on account of arrears of rent for one year.

3. Against that decree, the present revision has been filed by Vidya Ram defendant. When the revision came up for hearing before a learned single judge of this Court on 12.5.64. he was of the opinion that the revision raises certain important question of law. He, therefore, referred the case to a large Bench.

4. Mr. S.B.L. Gaur appearing for the plaintiff-respondent urged before us that, we should confine our decision to the question of law mentioned in the order of reference. It may, however, be pointed out that the learned single Judge remarked in his order dated 12.5.64 that, it was desirable that the case should be decided by a larger Bench. The operative part of that order runs thus:

"I, therefore, direct that the papers on this case be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for the decision of the case."

5. It is thus obvious that the learned single Judge was referring the entire case to a large Bench. The reference was not confined to the questions of law mentioned in the order of reference. Chapter V, Rule 6, Rules of Court enables the Chief Justice to constitute a Bench to decide a case or a question of law formulated by a Bench hearing the case. There is no indication on the record that in constituting this Bench the learned Chief Justice wanted the Division Bench to confine its attention to the questions of law mentioned in the order of reference. We, therefore, take it that the constitution of the Division Bench under Chapter V, Rule 6, Rules of Court was in terms of the order of reference, dated 12.5.64. We, therefore, take it that the entire case is before us for decision.

6. Mr. K.C. Agarwal appearing for the defendant-applicant contended that a landlord's suit for fixation of rent is not maintainable. For this proposition, Mr. Agarwal relied upon a decision by Desai, C.J. in Deo Datt Dwivedi v. Ajit Prasad Dube 1963 A.L.J. 888. In that case the landlord sued for fixation of rent. It was held that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.

7. A case under Section 5(4) came up before the Supreme Court in Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad 1959 S.C. 492 : 1959 A.L.J. 626. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed on page 497 thus:

"The reasonable annual rent could be varied at the instance of the landlord or the tenant on the ground of its inadequacy or excess but the landlord could not bring a suit to vary the agreed rent."

According to that observation, the only restriction on the landlord is that, under Section 5(4) of the Act, he cannot apply for enhancement of the agreed rent. In the present case we are not dealing with agreed rent between the parties. So, the