JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - This petition by the landlords arise out of an application for fixing the rent as provided under section 5 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There is no dispute that the respondent was a tenant of the disputed accommodation and the agreed rent was Rs. 22/-. The case set up by the petitioners was that on the enforcement of the Act, they approached the tenant for enhancement of the rent to Rs. 34.37 to which they were entitled under the Act, which he agreed to do and consequently no notice was given to him as required by law. Subsequently he went back of his word taking advantage of the fact that no notice enhancing the rent was given to him. On this allegation it was prayed that "the rent be fixed at Rs. 34.37 per month as provided under section 5 of the Act." The tenant denied that he ever agreed to pay the enhanced rent and it was pleaded that the application under section 8 of the Act was not maintainable. 2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer enhanced the agreed lent by 25%. The petitioners submitted to that order. On appeal by the tenant, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer was competent under section 8 of the Act to fix the standard rent. Reference in this connection was made to the definition of standard rent under the Act. In so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present case standard rent, in the case of building governed by the old Act and let out at the time of the commencement of the new Act means, where there is both an agreed rent payable therefore at such commencement as well as a reasonable annual rent plus 25 per cent thereon, whichever is greater. This is subject to the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 10. There is no dispute that in the present case the agreed rent was Rs. 22/-. There is, however, no evidence as to the amount of the reasonable annual rent defined in Section 2(f) of the old Act. This is subject to the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 10. There is no dispute that in the present case the agreed rent was Rs. 22/-. There is, however, no evidence as to the amount of the reasonable annual rent defined in Section 2(f) of the old Act. Under the new Act, 'standard rent' would be the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent plus 25% thereon whichever is greater. It had not been shown that the agreed rent is less than the annual reasonable rent plus 25% thereon. In such a situation the agreed rent itself would be the standard rent as defined in the Act. Section 8 of the Act provides for the determination of the disputes with regard to the amount of the standard rent and to the amount of the enhancement of rent permissible under Section 5 or section 6 etc. The Act by Section 5 empowers the landlord to enhance the rent payable to an amount not exceeding the standard rent by giving to the tenant a notice in writing within 3 months from the commencement of the Act. That admittedly the landlords failed to do There was, therefore, no dispute to the amount of enhancement in rent permissible under Section 5 of the Act. There was also no dispute as to the quantum of the standard rant. Section 8 was therefore, not at all attracted. The prayer of the landlords was that rent be fixed at Rs. 34.37 as provided under section 5 of the Act such a relief could not be granted by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer in exercise of power under section 8 of the Act, even if it be assumed that the power conferred on the District Magistrate had been delegated to him, the condition precedents for the exercise of the power being totally absent. The view taken by the court below does not suffer from any error much less an apparent error of law which any justify interference by this Court under Article 2.6 of the Constitution. 5. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.