JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This revision arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff applicant for recovery of Rs. 487-50 p. as rent of a shop situate in the town of Mianpuri at the enhanced rate of 25% over that payable before July 15, 1972, the date on which the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act") came into force. The plaintiff came to court with the allegations that the defendant opposite party was a tenant on payment of Rs. 65/- per month as rent ; that the shop in suit was a pre-1950 construction and was governed by the provisions of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act" ; that on enforcement of the new Act the plaintiff- applicant served on the defendant opposite party a notice enhancing the rent by 25% to Rs. 81-25p. per month that the notice was received by the defendant opposite party on October 10, 1972 but she did not pay rent at the enhanced rate and that six months rent amounting to Rs. 487-50p. at the enhanced rate of Rs. 81-25p. had become due for the period 15th July, 1972 to 15th January, 1973 and the plaintiff applicant claimed recovery of the said amount. In reply the defendant opposite party pleaded that the rate of rent payable was Rs. 65/- ; that shop in suit had been constructed in the year 1962 and not before 1950 as pleaded by the plaintiff-applicant ; that the rent upto 15th July, 1972 had been paid at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month ; that there was a written rent note showing that the shop had been constructed in 1966 ; that the plaintiff. applicant wrongfully wanted to enhance the rent on the ground that the shop had been constructed before 1950 and had even wrongfully refused to receive six months rent from 15th July, 1972 to 15th January, 1973. The court of Munsif, Mainpuri which tried the suit as a Judge of the court of small causes framed two issues, namely, (1) whether the plaintiff's shop was constructed before 1944 or in the year 1966 ; and (2) whether the plaintiff could claim an increase in the rent by 25%. The court of Munsif, Mainpuri which tried the suit as a Judge of the court of small causes framed two issues, namely, (1) whether the plaintiff's shop was constructed before 1944 or in the year 1966 ; and (2) whether the plaintiff could claim an increase in the rent by 25%. The learned Munsif found that the shop in suit was constructed before 1950, but held that the defendant opposite party had become a tenant of the shop in suit on 15th June, 1972 on the agreed rent of Rs. 65/- per month which was by itself an increased rent inasmuch as the shop in suit was originally let out at Rs. 10/- per month in the year 1950 and the tenant before the defendant opposite party was paying Rs. 60/- per month as a rent. With these findings, the learned Munsif dismissed the suit with costs. 2. The plaintiff applicant thereupon went up in revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act before the District Judge, Mainpuri. The learned District Judge held that the suit could not have been dismissed in its entirety and that the rent should have been decreed at the rate of at least Rs. 65/- per month. He, however, proceeded to observe that the real dispute between the parties was whether the plaintiff landlord was entitled to enhance the rent by 25% and on a consideration of the provisions of section 5 of the New Act be held that the landlord was entitled to increase the rent to the extent of the standard rent. He then proceeded to quote the definition of standard rent contained in clause (k) of section 3 of the new Act and the definition of annual reasonable rent contained in the schedule thereto. The learned District Judge then found that the annual reasonable rent of the shop in suit was Rs. 12-50p. per month and proceeded to observe that under the definition of standard rent, since in this case there was both reasonable annual rent as well as agreed rent, the landlord was entitled either to the agreed rent or to the annual reasonable rent plus 25%, which ever was greater, but held that this clause did not show any intention on the part of the legislature "to increase all rent by 25%. In the result' the learned District Judge confirmed the finding of the learned Munsif that the landlord was not entitled to increase the rent by 25% but modified the decree of the trial court by decreeing the suit for recovery of the rent for the six months period from 15th July, 1972 to January 15, 1973 at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month. 3. The plaintiff has now come up in revision under section 115, C P.C. against the judgment of the learned District Judge. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties., I regret my inability to agree with the decision of the learned District Judge on either of the two points decided by him. 4. On the first question whether the plaintiff was entitled to increase the rent to the extent of the standard rant, the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate the true import of the opening clause. In the case of a tenancy continuing from before the commencement of this act "which finds place in section 5 of the new Act. It is undisputed that the tenancy commenced in this case on 15th June, 1972 and the Act came into force on 15th July, 1972. Assuming that the defendant opposite party was a tenant from month to month, there was no continuation of the tenancy on the peculiar facts of the present case, at any time before 15th July, 1972. The tenancy had no doubt commenced before that date but could not be said to be a tenancy continuing from before the commencement of the new Act ; and consequently the plaintiff applicant was not entitled to enhance the rent by a notice under section 5 of the new Act. 5. Normally, this should have been sufficient to dismiss the revision. However, I must say that I do not agree with the interpretation put by the learned District Judge on the definition of standard rent in cases where there is both an agreed rent and a reasonable annual rent for the building in question, but a decision on this point being unnecessary for the purpose of this case I refrain from expressing a reasoned final opinion on this point. 6. 6. I have also to observe that the Learned District Judge having substantially modified the decree of dismissal of the suit which had been passed by the trial court, by decreeing it for recovery of the rent for the period of six months from 15th July, 1912 to 15th January, 1973 at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month, the proper order for him, to have passed was to allow the revision in part and not to dismiss it. Further, the learned District Judge has also ordered that the amount of rent for the period 15th January, 1973 to 15th June, 1973 that had also been deposited by the defendant opposite party in court shall be payable to the plaintiff applicant on payment of requisite court- fees. Such a direction could not have been given as the matter was not covered by section 11 of the Court Fees Act which applies only to "suits for mesne profits or for immovable property or for account". The suit was for recovery of arrears of rent simpliciter for the period 15th July, 1972 to 14th January, 1973. Indeed, there could have been no claim made in the suit for recovery of the pendente lite and future rent, for no cause of action could he said to have accrued for the same when the suit was filed. The defendant opposite party did, however deposit not only the rent for the period claimed in the suit but also the rent for the subsequent period. Indeed, it appears from the period that in addition to the rent for the period of ten months 15th July, 1972 to 15th June, 1973 which was deposited by the tender (paper No. 18Ca) in the suit giving rise to the revision on 22.8.1973/31.8.1973 the further rent for a period of eight months from 16th June, 1973 to 15th February, 1974 (it ought to have been 15th June, 1973 to 14th February, 1974) was deposited on March 12/21, 1974 during the pendency of the revision in the District Judge's court vide tender (paper No. 39 Ga). Since the suit was not for ejectment but was merely a suit for arrears of rent, sub-section (4) of section 20 of the new Act did not apply nor did the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code have any application to the facts of the case. Since the suit was not for ejectment but was merely a suit for arrears of rent, sub-section (4) of section 20 of the new Act did not apply nor did the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code have any application to the facts of the case. The defendant opposite party was under the circumstances not obliged to deposit any rent in court in the suit giving rise to the present revision. He could have, if he so liked, deposited the rent under section 30 of the new Act in Munsif's Court having jurisdiction over the area. If the defendant opposite party had done so, that would have to given rise to a separate proceeding and the landlord could have withdrawn the amount so deposited without being required to pay any court-fees for recovery thereof. The plaintiff applicant had not in the present case claimed any decree for any period beyond 15th January, 1973. Under the circumstances, I am of opinion that while the claim for the rent for the period of six months from 15th July, 1972 to 14th January, 1973 could have been decreed at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month and the amount of the decree could had been recovered from the deposits made by the defendant opposite party, no further decree or direction for payment of the amount deposited by the defendant opposite party could have been passed in this suit. However, further amounts having been deposited it shall be in the discretion of the court to refund the excess to the party entitled to the same. 7. In the result, subject to the modifications and the observations made above, the revision falls and is dismissed. The plaintiff applicant shall pay to the defendant opposite party his cost throughout.