JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is Plaintiff's revision u/s 25, provincial Small Cause Courts Act, arising out of a suit for recovery of house rent. The Plaintiffs case is that the Defendant is the tenant under hire for a very long time; the rental for the year 1950 was Rs. 3/- p. m. in the year 1951 it was enhanced to Rs. 40/- p. m.; it was further enhanced to Rs. 60/- p. m. in 1952; and finally there was adjustment of accounts between the parties and the account was settled at Rs. 1,175/- out of which there were payments made by the Defendant from time to time. After taking into account the payment, the Plaintiff has laid her claim at Rs. 450/- towards arrear rent. 2. The Defendant had denied the genuineness of the agreement and he had also taken the plea that he was not liable for the amount claimed by the Plaintiff. 3. The learned S.C.C. Judge, however, as a matter of fact, has found that the deed of agreement relied upon by the Plaintiff is genuine and there was an agreement between the parties adjusting the accounts on the aforesaid date, that is, 8-12-52. But nevertheless he dismissed the suit placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 4 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1950 which runs thus: Subject to the provision of this Act and not withstanding any contract to the contrary no land lords shall be entitled to charge rent for any house at a sum higher than what is justified on the basis of rent shown in the registers maintained by any local authority. The admitted position is that in fact the municipal register shows the annual rental valuation of the holding at Rs. 300/. According to the learned S.C.C. Judge, the Plaintiff is not entitled to more than the aforesaid amount. On that basis the learned S.C.C. Judge found that nothing was due to the Plaintiff and he dismissed the suit. 4. Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, has placed before me a judgment (unreported case) of the Division Bench of our Court passed in O.C. 74 of 1955. On that basis the learned S.C.C. Judge found that nothing was due to the Plaintiff and he dismissed the suit. 4. Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, has placed before me a judgment (unreported case) of the Division Bench of our Court passed in O.C. 74 of 1955. In construing the provision of Section 4 their Lordships have taken into consideration the other provisions of the Act such as Sections 5 and 6 in as much as Section 4 is always made subject to other provisions of the Act. Their Lordships came to the conclusion that in fixing the fair and equitable rent payable by the tenant, the Municipal Register, or the registers kept by any local authority cannot be conclusive and it is just one element to be taken into consideration in fixing the fair and equitable rental. The O.J.C. arose out of proceedings for fixation of fair and equitable rent. The learned S.C.C. Judge in my opinion has erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the municipal register showing the annual rental valuation of the holding is conclusive. 5. But this is not sufficient to dispose of the matter nor is it sufficient to give a decree to the Plaintiff. The real difficulty in the way of the Plaintiff is Section 5(b) of the Act running to the effect: The landlord shall not be entitled to increase the rent which was on the date of commencement of this Act or any other date subsequent thereto payable for such house. 6. The admitted position is that the commencement of the Orissa H.R.C. Act the rent was being paid at the rate of Rs. 20/-. On a plain reading of the provision of Section 5(b) it is absolutely clear that the land lords cannot increase the rental and cannot claim enhanced rent in suit inspite of any contract to the contrary between the parties for enhancement of rental. In this view of this matter the claims of the Plaintiff is much more reduced and, therefore, while disagreeing with the reasons given by the learned S.C.C. Judge, I confirm the order and decree passed by him that the Plaintiff is Dot entitled any relief. The Civil revision is accordingly dismissed, and in the circumstances of the case the parties are to bear their own costs through out. 7. Revision dismissed Final Result : Dismissed