JUDGMENT S.C. Manchanda, J. - This is a revision against the order of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur dated, the 31st August 1960, dismissing the plaintiff-applicant's suit filed under gee 5(4) of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. By the suit the plaintiff required the monthly rent of the premises known as Jubilee Talkies to be reduced from the agreed, rent of Rs. 1125 to Rs. 210 or any other reasonable amount which the court may deem fit. The agreement fixing the rent at Rs. 1125 was entered into by an agreement dated, the 4th April 1955. The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid rent was agreed to, as a result of the misrepresentation made by Sobha Chand Sethiya one of the defendants, who is managing trustee of Messrs. Rai Bahadur Hardutt Rai Radha Kishan Chamaria Trust, to the effect that the rent of the Cinema since 1940 had been 1200/- p.m. It was claimed that it had now been discovered that the rent in July 1942 was only Rs. 280. The learned Civil Judge found that there was a in is representation made and, therefore, the transaction whereby the rent was agreed upon was "unfair" within the meaning of Sec. 5 sub-Cl. (4) of the Act and therefore he had jurisdiction to fix the rent. In fixing the rent, statutory considerations laid down in Sec. 6 of the Act were considered. His finding was that the plaintiff applicant had, except proving the annual reasonable rent as provided for in Sec. 2(f), not established any of the other circumstances. The burden of proof being on the plaintiff, the agreed rent was held to be the proper rent. It was also found that though the rent in July 1942 was Rs. 280, for the period, 1st October 1944 to 31st September 1947. the rent was Rs. 675 per mensem. From July 1942 to 30th Sep. 1942, the rent of those premises was Rs. 1250 per mensem. The premises in dispute consisted of not only the cinema house but residential quarters, shops, furniture and cinema machinery, projector, etc. The rent from the cycle stand and shops alone was, admittedly, Rs. 175 per mensem. A definite question was put to the plaintiff applicant in the witness box in cross-examination as to whether the rent of Venus cinema in Gorakhpur was Rs. The rent from the cycle stand and shops alone was, admittedly, Rs. 175 per mensem. A definite question was put to the plaintiff applicant in the witness box in cross-examination as to whether the rent of Venus cinema in Gorakhpur was Rs. 1600 per mensem, but the applicant was not in a position to affirm or deny it. Having regard to these circumstances and the fact that the petitioner was in cinema business and was running cinemas at Varanasi and Bareilly where the monthly rent paid by the applicant was Rs. 850 and Rs. 2,500 per mensem respectively it was held that the proper and fair rent for the premises was the agreed rent of Rs. 1125 per month. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously contended that there was no jurisdiction in the civil court to fix a rent after having found that the transaction was "unfair" at a figure higher than, that provided in the first proviso to Sec. 5 (2) of the Act. The argument was that once a transaction has been declared to be unfair the parties will be relegated to the position of there being no agreement at all and in that situation the provisions of Sec. 5(2) and of the Act in particular, the first proviso thereto would come into play and the ceiling at which the rent could be fixed would be that laid down in the first proviso to Sec. 5 sub-Sec. (2) of the Act. In order to appreciate this contention it becomes necessary to set out sub-Cl. (2) of Sec. 5 and the first proviso thereto. This runs :- "5(2) Where the rent for any such accommodation has not been agreed upon or where in the case of tenancy continuing from October 1, 1956 the landlord wishes to enhance the rent agreed upon he may by a notice in writing fix the annual rent or enhance it to an amount not exceeding the reasonable annual rent. Provided that the enhanced rent shall not exceed the rent if any payable on October 1, 1946 by more than 50% thereof." 4. This sub-section manifestly, has no application to a case where the landlord does not ask for the enhancement of the rent agreed to or for the fixation of the annual rent. A fortiori the proviso cannot, also come into play. This sub-section manifestly, has no application to a case where the landlord does not ask for the enhancement of the rent agreed to or for the fixation of the annual rent. A fortiori the proviso cannot, also come into play. Faced with this situation it was contended that the principle underlying sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 5 and the proviso thereto could be invoked in a case where the transaction itself had been declared to be unfair. There can be no warrant for extending the provisions of Sec. 5 sub-Sec. (2) any further than what is expressly provided. 5. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in Ram Das Gupta v. Shiva Charan Lal, 1962 A.L.J. 19. That was a case where the landlord had filed a suit under sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 5 of the Act for enhancing the rent agreed at Rs. 300 per annum in 1931 to 1,200 per annum. In those circumstances it was held that the case fell within the scope of the first proviso to Sec. 5 (2) of the Act. The principle of that decision cannot possibly be extended to a case such as the present. The first contention, therefore, is without force and has to be rejected. 6. It was next contended that as at least one of the five circumstances provided in Sec. 6 of the Act, which were required to be considered in determining the amount of annual or monthly rent, had been provided by the plaintiff that should have been considered to be more than sufficient to discharge the onus, if such onus lay on the plaintiff. This is not a question which affects the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court had jurisdiction under Sec. 6 of the Act to take into consideration the several factors mentioned therein. The Court has, as already observed, taken into consideration, the rent from July 1942 to the 30th September 1942, the rent realised by the applicant from the cycle stand and shops, the absence of evidence to prove the prewar rent, the rent for similar accommodation in the locality, the cost of maintenance and repairs of such accommodation and other material circumstances and had come to the conclusion that the rent of Rs. 1,125 was the proper rent. 1,125 was the proper rent. It is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of any jurisdictional error in the finding of fact arrived at by the court below. 7. For the reasons given above, the application is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.