ORDER Satish Chandra, C.J. -The plaintiff-applicant instituted a suit for an injunction restraining the defendant, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, from realising a sum of money as the arrears of market fee. During its pendency the defendant Mandi Samiti made an application that the suit was liable to abate in view of sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (Act No. 23 of 1972) as amended by U.P. Act 17 of 1975. The trial court allowed this application and ordered the abatement of the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision. 2. Section 5 of the Amendment Act of 1975 provides that all suits, applications and arbitration proceedings of the nature referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act of 1972 shall abate. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act of 1972 applies to a suit which challenges a certificate sent to the Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 refers to moneys due under an agreement. Clause (d) provides that any agreement providing that any money payable thereunder to the State Government or the Corporation shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and if such person makes any default or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the agreement." 3. The condition precedent to the applicability of clause (d) is the existence of an agreement which provides for money payable thereunder and, in the next place, which provides that such money shall be recoverable as. arrears of land revenue. Here, the plaintiff is challenging the validity of the levy of market fee. The defendant Mandi Samiti pleaded that the plaintiffs are carrying on the business in the market area under a licence granted to them under the provisions of the Mandi Samiti Act and the Rules and the bye-laws. The prescribed form for the licence provides that the licence shall follow the provisions of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act and the Rules and the bye-laws. There is no provision in the licence form that in case of default, the licence shall be responsible for the application of the penal provisions of the Act, including the recovery of arrears as an arrear of land revenue. There is no provision in the licence form that in case of default, the licence shall be responsible for the application of the penal provisions of the Act, including the recovery of arrears as an arrear of land revenue. In the present case, the Mandi Samiti is seeking to realise arrears of market fee as an arrear of land revenue. Section 20 of the Mandi Samiti Act expressly provides that 'any amount due to the Committee, if not paid within the prescribed period, may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 4. Even though by obtaining the licence, the plaintiff may be deemed to have entered into an agreement agreeing to abide by the Mandi Samiti Act and the Rules and the bye-laws, yet such a provision in the licence deed cannot be stretched to include an agreement that if the licence commits a breach, he agrees to be liable to the recovery of the amount due as arrears of land revenue. He may be liable under Section 20 because that is his statutory liability but that liability cannot be imported into the licence deed as if it were a part of an agreement It is hence difficult to say that the licence deed was an agreement providing that any money payable thereunder shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 5. Since the condition precedent was lacking sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1972 was not applicable to the present case. Therefore, sub-section (5) of Section 3 was equally inapplicable and hence Section 5 of the Amendment Act of 1975 was of no avail. In the result, the suit could not be abated under the aforesaid Section 5 of the Amendment Act of 1975. 6. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The finding recorded by the court below on the defendants application is set aside and the application 62-C is dismissed. I, however, make no order as to costs.