JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Devi Chandra Garg and others, the petitioners, are the owners of House No. 474 Khurbura, and House No. 60 Kanwali Road, Dehradun. These two houses had been let out to various tenants. Out of these tenants some of them were respondents 4 to 9. These houses were constructed in 1948 and were thereafter let out at agreed rents. After the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the landlords sent notices under section 5 of the aforesaid Act to the tenants for enhancing rents. The tenants replied the notices and disputed their liability. Thereupon the landlords filed six applications against the six respondents who are arrayed as respondents 4 to 9. These applications had been filed under section 8 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the fixation of the standard rent. Through these applications, the landlords made a prayer for enhancement of rent. The applications were contested by each one of the tenants. They contended that the applications were not maintainable. One of the pleas raised in the defence was that as each one of the tenant was paying agreed rent the landlords were not entitled to get the standard rent fixed. Two applications came up for hearing before one Prescribed Authority. Having found that the landlords were entitled to enhancement, the Prescribed Authority allowed the applications against respondents 4 and 7 but the applications filed against respondents 5, 6, 8 and 9 came up for hearing before another Prescribed Authority. As this Prescribed Authority was of the opinion that the applications were not maintainable, he rejected them. This led to the filing of six appeals before the District Judge. Four appeals were preferred by the petitioners whereas two were preferred by the tenants respondents 4 and 7. All of these appeals were decided by different judgments passed on the same date by the District Judge. The learned District Judge held that the landlords were entitled to get the standard rent fixed in accordance with clause 3(k)(ii) of the Act. In this view of the matter, some of the appeals were rejected whereas in some other cases, the District Judge fixed the standard rent at the same value or figure which was the assessed value of the property found entered in the municipal records. Against these orders, the present writ petition has been filed. In this view of the matter, some of the appeals were rejected whereas in some other cases, the District Judge fixed the standard rent at the same value or figure which was the assessed value of the property found entered in the municipal records. Against these orders, the present writ petition has been filed. Through this writ petition, the landlords have challenged the validity of the orders made in the six cases by the learned District Judge. 2. The only question that arises for decision is whether the applications filed by the petitioners were maintainable and they were entitled to get the standard rent fixed. The expression "standard rent" has been defined in section 3(k) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The same is reproduced below :- "3-(k) "standard rent", subject to the provisions of sections 6, 8 and 10 means :- (i) In the case of building governed by the old Act and let out at the time of the commencement of this Act :- (a) Where there is both an agreed rent payable therefor at such commencement as well as a reasonable annual rent (which in this Act has the, same meaning as in section 2(f) of the old Act, reproduced in the Schedule) the agreed rent, or the reasonable annual rent plus 25 per cent thereon, which ever is greater ; (b) Where there is no agreed rent but there is a reasonable annual rent, the reasonable rent plus 25 per thereon ; (c) Where there is neither agreed rent, nor reasonable annual rent, the rent as determined under section 9 ; (ii) In any other case, the assessed letting value for the time being in force and in the absence of assessment, the rent determined under section 9 ; " The definition of the expression "annual reasonable rent" as 'given in section 2(f) of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 has been adopted by Section 3(k) of the Act for the purposes of this Act. The relevant portion of the definition of the "annual reasonable rent is as follows :- "2(f)-"Reasonable annual rent" in the case of accommodation constructed before July 1, 1946 means :- (1) If it is separately assessed to municipal assessment, its municipal assessment plus 25 per cent thereon ; (2) If it is a part only of the accommodation so assessed, the proportionate amount of the municipal assessment of such accommodation plus 25 per cent thereon ; (3) If it is not assessed to municipal assessment- (i) But was held by a tenant on rent between April 1, 1942 and June 30, 1946 fifteen times the rent for the one month nearest to and after April 1, 1942, and (ii) If it was not so held on rent the amount determined tinder section 3-A and in the case of accommodation, constructed on or after July 1, 1946, means the. rent determined in accordance with section 3-A." 3. In the instant case, I have already stated above that the two houses had been constructed in 1948. These houses could not be assessed in the year 1946. In this case, therefore, the annual reasonable rent could only mean the rent determined in accordance with section 3-A. But, admittedly, no rent had been determined in accordance with section 3-A. Accordingly, since there was no reasonable annual rent for the properties clauses (a) and (b) of section 3- K(i) does not apply. 4. There are three sub-clauses in clause (i) of section 3-K. Clause (a) applies to a case where there is both an agreed rent payable as well as reasonable annual rent payable thereof. For clause (b), it is necessary that there should be reasonable annual rent and there is no agreed rent. For clause (c) it is necessary that there is neither agreed rent nor reasonable annual rent. As there was no reasonable annual rent, clauses (a) and (b) of clause (i) of section 3-K would not apply. So far as clause (c) is concerned, it would apply to a case where there is neither agreed rent nor reasonable annual rent. In the instant case there was agreed rent, hence this clause would also not apply. 5. As there was no reasonable annual rent, clauses (a) and (b) of clause (i) of section 3-K would not apply. So far as clause (c) is concerned, it would apply to a case where there is neither agreed rent nor reasonable annual rent. In the instant case there was agreed rent, hence this clause would also not apply. 5. The provision which could be applied to the facts of the present case was contained in clause 3(k)(ii), which is as under : "In any other case the assessed letting value for the time being in force and in the absence of assessment, the rent determined under section 9." The expression 'any other case' is wide enough to cover a case which would not otherwise come within clause (i) of section 3(k). As I have already held above, the present case does not fall under clause (i) of Section 3(k), the provisions of clause (ii) of section 3(k) were applicable. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the submission of Sri B.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the landlord petitioners that the petitioners entitled to enhancement under clause (i) of sub-clause (k) of section 3. That being so, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Since nobody appears to contest the writ petition there shall to no order as to costs.