JUDGMENT M.C. Desai, C.J. - This is an application by a tenant for revision of an order passed under Sec. 5(4) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act by a Civil Judge fixing rent of the accommodation in dispute at Rs. 50/- per month and making it payable with effect from the 17th of February, 1956. The agreed rent of the accommodation is Rs. 35/- per month (i.e. Rs. 420/- annually) and the reasonable annual rent based on Municipal assessment is Rs. 525/-. Under Sec. 5(2) of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act it was open to the opposite party to enhance the annual rent from Rs. 420/- to Rs. 630/- by a notice in writing but he could not do so because he could not go beyond the figure of the reasonable annual rent. So a cause of action was provided through sub-Sec, (4) of Sec. 5 for a suit by him for a declaration that the reasonable annual rent was inadequate. Three classes of cases are referred to in sub-Sec. (4) : (1) When landlord or tenant claims that the reasonable annual rent is inadequate or excessive, (2) Where the amount of the reasonable annual rent declared by the District Magistrate under Sec. 3-A is not correct, and (3) Where a tenant claims that the agreed rent is higher than the reasonable annual rent. In these cases the landlord or tenant "may institute a suit for declaration or as the case may be for fixation of rent". This means that in some of the cases the suit lies for declaration and in the remaining it lies for fixation of rent. In what cases the suit lies for declaration or fixation of rent depends upon the structure of the sentence and other provisions. According to the structure of the sentence the suit lies for declaration at least in the first class and the suit lies for fixation of rent at least in the last class; this is clear from the fact that "a suit for declaration" is mentioned before "a suit for fixation of rent". If the first class gave rise to a suit for fixation of rent or one would have expected a suit for fixation of rent being mentioned earlier than a suit for declaration. If the first class gave rise to a suit for fixation of rent or one would have expected a suit for fixation of rent being mentioned earlier than a suit for declaration. Further, the reliefs that are required in the three classes also show that in the first two classes the suit must be for declaration and in the last class it must be for fixation of rent. A Cause of action has been given to a landlord for a declaration that the reasonable annual rent is inadequate so that it may be made adequate and then he may by notice enhance the agreed rent upto the amount of the so determined reasonable annual rent as provided in sub-See. (2). Similarly if a tenant contends that the reasonable annual rent is excessive, he has to sue for a declaration that it is so and for determination of a smaller amount of reasonable annual rent so that he can sue for fixation of rent (if the agreed rent is higher than the reasonable annual rent so determined), or prevent the landlord from enhancing, by a notice given under sub-Sec. (2), the agreed rent to a figure beyond the amount of the reasonable annual rent so determined. There is no question of the landlord's suing for fixation of rent when he can himself enhance the rent to the figure of the reasonable annual rent determined by the court, or of the tenant's suing for fixation of rent unless the agreed rent is higher than the determined reasonable annual rent. Similarly when the landlord or the tenant contends that the reasonable annual rent declared by the District Magistrate is incorrect, he can get it increased (in the case of the landlord) or reduced (in the case of the tenant) so that the landlord may increase the rent by a notice upto a certain amount or may not increase it by a notice beyond a certain amount, or the tenant may sue for fixation of rent on the ground that the agreed rent is higher than corrected reasonable annual rent. In this case also the only relief that is called for is a declaration that a certain amount is the proper reasonable annual rent and not the one declared by the District Magistrate under Sec. 3-A. When we come to the third case it is obvious that the only relief that a tenant can claim is that of reduction of rent. When the agreed rent is higher there is nothing that the landlord can do; the only relief that can be claimed is by the tenant and it cannot be other than that of abatement of rent. No relief of declaration will serve his purpose because he cannot get any relief by his own act even if he is armed with a declaration. A tenant's case stands on a different footing from a landlord's because the latter can do something if he gets a declaration in respect of the reasonable annual rent while the former cannot. 2. As I said in Ram Das Gupta v. Shiva Charan Lal, 1962 A.L.J. 19 the limit fixed by the first proviso to Sec. 5(2) that the enhanced rent shall not exceed the rent, if any, payable on the 1st of October, 1946, by more that 50 per cent thereof is absolute; even if the amount of the reasonable annual rent exceeds the amount of the agreed rent by more than 50 per cent thereof, the landlord cannot enhance the rent to a figure beyond 50 per cent of the agreed rent. So if the amount of the reasonable annual rent which exceeds the amount of the agreed rent or the rent payable by more than 50 per cent thereof is in-adequate, he cannot enhance the rent even though he may get a declaration that the reasonable annual rent is inadequate. 3. What happened in this case is that the opposite party sued for fixation of rent and not for a declaration that the reasonable annual rent was inadequate. In the plaint as originally drafted the opposite party did not even state the amount of the reasonable annual rent; if he had sued for a declaration one would have expected him to state the amount of the reasonable annual rent in the plaint. In the plaint as originally drafted the opposite party did not even state the amount of the reasonable annual rent; if he had sued for a declaration one would have expected him to state the amount of the reasonable annual rent in the plaint. He said in the plaint that he had asked the applicant several times "to enhance the rent to a reasonable amount considering the facts and circumstances detailed in paragraph 7 above but he refused to come to any amicable settlement; hence the necessity for the present suit"; this indicates that the relief that he was claiming was of fixation of rent at a reasonable figure and not of a declaration that the reasonable annual rent was inadequate. In paragraph 9 he wrote that "the plaintiff claims fixation of rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month subject to the liability of the defendant to pay the municipal taxes over and above the fixed rent"; this confirms that what he sued for was fixation or rent to be paid by the applicant to the opposite party and not reasonable annual rent so that later the opposite party could by a notice under sub-sec. (2) enhance the agreed rent. He expressly wanted the court itself to fix the rent and never contemplated that he himself would enhance the rent by a notice under sub-sec. (2). The date on which the cause of action accrued was the date of refusal on the part of the applicant to increase the rent; this is a cause of action for fixation of rent and not for a suit for a declaration that the reasonable annual rent is inadequate. The reasonable annual rent is fixed by law and cannot be varied by the parties. Therefore, when the opposite party stated the applicant had necessarily meant that he had refused to increase the rent payable or the agreed rent and not the reasonable annual rent. The relief sought was "fixing by enhancing the rent of the house to Rs. 100/-"; it cannot be said that this was a prayer for increasing the reasonable annual rent to Rs. 100/-. As I explained earlier no useful purpose was to be served by the opposite party's getting the reasonable annual rent increased to a figure beyond Rs. 630/- because even if it had been increased to a figure beyond Rs. 100/-"; it cannot be said that this was a prayer for increasing the reasonable annual rent to Rs. 100/-. As I explained earlier no useful purpose was to be served by the opposite party's getting the reasonable annual rent increased to a figure beyond Rs. 630/- because even if it had been increased to a figure beyond Rs. 630/- he could not, by a notice given under sub-sec. (2), enhance the rent to a figure beyond Rs. 630/- and so he could not have sued for a declaration that the reasonable annual rent was Rs. 1,200/-. I have mentioned the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge; he clearly fixed the rent to be paid by the applicant to the opposite party, and not the reasonable annual rent. 4. The suit was misconceived and the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for fixation of rent. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 492 at 496 that a landlord cannot sue for fixation of rent under Sec. 5(4). The instant suit was clearly one for fixation of rent and the decree passed also was for fixation or rent. The learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to fix the rent to be paid by the applicant to the opposite party. He could only fix the proper amount of the reasonable annual rent but what he has done is quite a different thing. 5. I, therefore, allow this application, set aside the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge and dismiss the opposite party's suit. The applicant shall get his costs of this Court from the opposite party but I would let the parties bear their costs of the lower court themselves.