JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - These two connected revisions arise out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff, who was the landlord, for determination of the rent u/s 5 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act. One revision has been filed by the Plaintiff and the other has been filed by the Defendant. 2. The Plaintiff's case was that he and his brother were the owners of the building bearing municipal number CK/15 situate in mohalla Kachauri Gali, Banaras. On 21-9-1945 the Plaintiff and his brother created a waqf-allal-aulad in respect of the said house and the Plaintiff was appointed the sole mutawalli thereof, and in that capacity he has filed the suit. The Defendant and Kamal Uddin, the brother of the Plaintiff, were great friends. In consideration of their friendship the house, excluding the ground floor, was let out to the Defendant at a very concessional rate of Rs. 60 p.m. The lease was granted for a period of ten years, from 3-3-38. That lease expired on 2-3-48 and thereafter the Defendant continued in occupation of the house without any right or title. By a notice dated 25-1-1948 the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to quit the house after the expiry of the lease on 2-3-48. But the Defendant did not vacate, but sent a wrong reply to the notice, and therefore, it is alleged, the Defendant is occupying the house without any rent having been agreed between the parties. But, since the Defendant is protected by the provisions of the Rent Control and Eviction Act and enjoys the status of a tenant, he cannot be ejected. The house is situate in the heart of the city and its rent cannot be less than Rs. 200, it was alleged that "reasonable annual rent" of the premises in suit was inadequate. Hence the necessity of the suit. 3. There were various pleas taken by the Defendant. But the main questions which were agitated by the Defendant were: 1. What would be the reasonable rent of the premises in suit ? and 2. Whether two storeys were added after the lease and what would be its effect ? 4. Hence the necessity of the suit. 3. There were various pleas taken by the Defendant. But the main questions which were agitated by the Defendant were: 1. What would be the reasonable rent of the premises in suit ? and 2. Whether two storeys were added after the lease and what would be its effect ? 4. A further ground was added later on: "Whether the suit was maintainable or not." There was an application on 2-2-1941 by the Defendant and in that application it was urged that the suit was misconceived and not maintainable inasmuch as the Plaintiff had alleged that Rs. 60 was agreed upon and no allegation about fraud or undu influence etc. had been made or could be made. In the circumstances the rent agreed could not be enhanced u/s 5(4) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act. This point was, therefore, also asked to be considered and actually it was on the basis of this application that an additional issue was framed whether the suit was not maintainable as alleged by the Defendant. While framing this issue the learned Munsif, before whom the case was pending, had recorded the statement of the Defendant's counsel. It was to the effect that the plea that the suit was not maintainable was set up for the following reasons: 1. That according to the pleadings contained in paragraph 5 of the plaint there was a tenancy where no rent had been fixed and hence no suit can lie u/s 5(1); and 2. If the rent of the expired lease be deemed to be the rent agreed upon then the plaint does not contain any allegation about undue influence, fraud etc., by which the transaction could be said to be unfair. And on the basis of that application and this statement actually issue No. 6 was framed. 5. The question of the determination of a proper rent was left to the judgment of the Munsif upon local inspection of the accommodation in suit. An inspection was made by the Munsif in the presence of the parties and he has recorded a note according to which he has held that Rs. 125 p.m. would be the correct rent for the premises in suit. He has not decided the issue whether the two storeys were constructed or not. Because while fixing the rent at Rs. An inspection was made by the Munsif in the presence of the parties and he has recorded a note according to which he has held that Rs. 125 p.m. would be the correct rent for the premises in suit. He has not decided the issue whether the two storeys were constructed or not. Because while fixing the rent at Rs. 125 p.m. he had taken the entire accommodation into consideration, whether they were built before the lease or after the lease, and on that account he has not considered it necessary to give a finding on that issue. 6. On the 6th issue, about the maintainability of the suit, the court below has repelled the two contentions taken by learned Counsel for the Defendant. The points on which the case was decided by the court below have not been challenged by learned Counsel for the Defendant applicant in this Court. He challenges the decree of the court below on the ground that no suit lies for fixation of rent by the landlord unless. 7. (1) he claims that the "reasonable annual rent" to which the Act applies was inadequate or excessive or (2) when the reasonable annual rent declared by the District Magistrate u/s 3(a) is not correct. 8. He further argues that the second condition does not really exist because there has been no determination of the "reasonable anual rent" by the District Magistrate u/s 3(a), nor could the District Magistrate determine the rent, because this house was not allotted and the Defendants had been in possession prior to the coming into force of the Rent Control and Eviction Act; and since the Plaintiff had not based his claim on the ground that the "reasonable annual" rent of the accommodation was inadequate or excessive the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit u/s 5(4) and reliance was placed on Jaswant Ram v. L. Kishan Chand 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 319 and Pt. Laxmi Narain Upadhya v. U.P. Co-operative Development and Marketing Federation Moradabad 1954 A.L.J.R. 502. 9. The case of Jaswant Ram 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 319 was a case in which the Plaintiff landlord had brought a suit on the basis that the agreed rent was inadequate. Laxmi Narain Upadhya v. U.P. Co-operative Development and Marketing Federation Moradabad 1954 A.L.J.R. 502. 9. The case of Jaswant Ram 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 319 was a case in which the Plaintiff landlord had brought a suit on the basis that the agreed rent was inadequate. It was not brought on the allegation that "reasonable annual" rent was inadequate, and, therefore, this Court held: A landlord can file a suit for fixation of rent u/s 5(4) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act that the annual reasonable rent is inadequate and in that case if the court considers that the reasonable annual rent is inadequate it will fix the proper rent payable for the accommodation and no question of the transaction being unfair arises in such a case. The question of the transaction being unfair arises in a case where the tenant has brought a suit for the reduction of the agreed rent and there is no provision in Section 5(4) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act to enable a landlord to file a suit for enhancement of the agreed rent. 10. In this case there is no question of the Plaintiff's claiming enhancement of any agreed rent. Actually the Plaintiff in his plaint (paragraphs 8 and 9) has clearly said that the annual reasonable rent of the house in dispute was inadequate and the assessment made by the municipal board was very low. I have gone through the plaint, and nowhere the Plaintiff bases his claim on the agreed rent being low. The tenancy was for a fixed period and had expired, and thereafter there was no question of any agreed rent. If the Rent Control and Eviction Act had not come into operation it would have been open to the Plaintiff to sue for ejectment. But since the Rent Control and Eviction Act has come into operation the Defendant cannot be ejected. But he is liable to pay an "annual reasonable" rent. "Annual reasonable rent" has been defined in Section (f) and it is based on the municipal assessment plus 25 per cent. When the case of the Plaintiff was that the annual reasonable rent was inadequate, the suit was entertainable according to the decision in Jaswant Ram 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 319. To the same effect is the decision in the other case, viz., Pt. When the case of the Plaintiff was that the annual reasonable rent was inadequate, the suit was entertainable according to the decision in Jaswant Ram 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 319. To the same effect is the decision in the other case, viz., Pt. Laxmi Narain Upadhya v. U.P. Co-operative Development and Marketing Federation 1954 A.L.J.R. 502. The two authorities cited above, as also case of Seth Girdhari Lal v. Lala Sunder Lal 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 183 have laid down that in case it is found that the annual reasonable rent is inadequate it is not necesssary for the Plaintiff to prove that the transaction was an unfair transaction. It is only in the case of agreed rent that the question of unfairness will arise. But in the case of reasonable rent no question of unfair transaction could arise. 11. This being a case in which the Plaintiff had made a definite allegation that the "annual reasonable" rent was inadequate certainly the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit u/s (4). 12. Next it was argued that in the plaint nowhere it was disclosed what the annual reasonable rent was, nor was any evidence led on it. This appears to be so, because no definite ground was taken in the written statement that the annual reasonable rent was not inadequate. Besides that, the parties seem to have agreed to the judgment of the learned Munsif that the proper rent would be the one which the learned Munsif would fix after the inspection. This agreement by implication means that no fresh-evidence on the reasonableness and adequacy of the rent would be given and the matter was left to the absolute discretion of the learned Munsif. In the circumstances no evidence was led. I may have remanded the case back to the trial court for recording a finding as to what was the annual reasonable rent. But it seems to be unnecessary on account of the undertaking having been given by the parties that they would abide by the decision of the Munsif. The parties have agreed to the decision of the Munsif. They cannot be permitted to reside from the same and the case cannot be reopened now for fresh evidence being recorded. 13. In the other revision the Plaintiff is dissatisfied that the rent fixed at Rs. 125/ - was inadequate and Rs. The parties have agreed to the decision of the Munsif. They cannot be permitted to reside from the same and the case cannot be reopened now for fresh evidence being recorded. 13. In the other revision the Plaintiff is dissatisfied that the rent fixed at Rs. 125/ - was inadequate and Rs. 200/ - should have been fixed as the proper rent. That revision cannot also be entertained because of the power of determining the rent having been given by the parties to the Munsif. 14. Since the case was based on the allegation by the landlord hat the annual reasonable rent was inadequate the court had perfect jurisdiction, and it has not been shown how the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity. In the circumstances I see no reason to interfere in either of the revisions. 15. Both the revisions are dismissed with costs.