ORDER M.P Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings which were initiated by a suit filed by the landlords for the eviction of the tenant. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent No. 2 Smt. Ramawati was the tenant. A suit was filed by the petitioners for the eviction of the said tenant and arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation etc. were claimed. No copy of the plaint has been appended to the petition. The tenant filed her written statement and resisted plaintiff's claim. However, no copy of her written statement has been appended to the petition. The suit was decreed by the trial court by its judgment dated 8.3.1978, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record The suit was decreed for eviction of the tenant and for arrears of rent and damages and damages pendente lite and future were also awarded at the rate of Rs. 42.20. Thereafter, the tenant filed a revision and the same was allowed by the revisional court in which the operative part of the judgment is as follows : "The revision is allowed. The plaintiff is allowed a decree for arrears or rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month from 18.8.1972 till this day. The prayer for ejectment is disallowed. The parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings throughout." 3. Feeling aggrieved, the landlords have come up in the instant petition and in support of the same, I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition, Sri H. S. Nigam, learned counsel for the tenant (respondent No. 2) has made his submissions. 4. Sri Jain contended that the revisional court was wrong in thinking that in every case the District Magistrate has to be approached for determining the standard rent under section 8 of the Act. The revisional court has observed as follows : "The learned counsel for the applicant defendant has urged that the forum for deciding standard rent is the District Magistrate in view of section 8 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act XIII of 1972. This decision has always to be given when there is a dispute about the amount of standard rent. The revisional court has observed as follows : "The learned counsel for the applicant defendant has urged that the forum for deciding standard rent is the District Magistrate in view of section 8 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act XIII of 1972. This decision has always to be given when there is a dispute about the amount of standard rent. The provisions of the At are so clear on this point and the learned trial court had also observed accordingly, but he just made a mistake in appreciating these provisions and was under the impression that the standard rent can be fixed unilaterally by the plaintiff landlord and if the tenant does not raise specific objections the standard rent calculated by the landlord will be deemed to be undisputed standard rent. I do not think that this is a proper interpretation of the provision. There should be a principle for deciding the rent and the more fact that a party does not choose to reply or acknowledge the notice of the landlord for which he is not legally bound, will not mean that the standard rent can be unilaterally fixed or set up. There is no dispute that previously the rent was Rs. 22/- per month and this was the agreed rent as mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint. This could not be increased in the manner stated in the petition and the learned trial court has erred in deciding the standard rent for which he had no jurisdiction. As such the rent of the disputed accommodation will be Rs. 22/- per month." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Ram Gopal & another v. District Judge Banda and others, 1981 A.R C. 617, where Hon. A. Banerji, J., laid down as follows : "The second contention was that the landlord could not enhance the rent unilaterally and could not dispute had been raised by the tenant it was for the landlord to get the dispute settled by making an application under section 8 of the Act to the District Magistrate. I find no substance in this argument as well Section 5 provides for the rent payable in the case of old buildings. It reads as follows : "5. Rent payable in case of old buildings. In the case of a tenancy continuing from before the commencement of this Act. I find no substance in this argument as well Section 5 provides for the rent payable in the case of old buildings. It reads as follows : "5. Rent payable in case of old buildings. In the case of a tenancy continuing from before the commencement of this Act. In respect of a buildings to which the old Act was applicable, the landlord may, by notice in writing, given within three months from the commencement of this Act enhance the rent payable therefor to an amount not exceeding standard rent, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of this Act." The provision makes it clear that a tenant of a building which was governed by the old Act (U.P. Act. III of 1947) is also liable to pay an enhanced rent from the date of the commencement of this Act. Four conditions had to be satisfied (1) it must be a building which was governed by the old Act; (2) the tenancy was continuing on the commencement of the Act; (3) the landlord had given a notice in writing to the tenant enhancing the rent, and (4) that amount does not exceed the standard rent. If all these conditions were fulfilled then the tenant would be liable to pay the said rent from the date of the commencement of the Act, i.e. 15th July, 1972. The words "the rent so enhanced shall be payable" make it clear that the enhanced rent i.e. rent not exceeding the standard rent is payable by the tenant from the commencement of the Act. In other words, the tenant is liable to pay said rent. If the tenant raises a dispute about the rent payable, the forum for determination of such a dispute is the District Magistrate under section 8 of the Act. An application has, in that case, to be moved before the District Magistrate. The contention of the learned counsel that it was the landlord who had to go to the District Magistrate for the determination of the standard rent is wholly misconceived. It is clear that enhanced rent is payable on compliance of the requirements of Section 5 of the Act. The Act empowers the landlord to enhance the rent unilaterally. It does not require any con- sent of the tenant. It is clear that enhanced rent is payable on compliance of the requirements of Section 5 of the Act. The Act empowers the landlord to enhance the rent unilaterally. It does not require any con- sent of the tenant. If the tenant disputes that rent, it is the tenant who has to go the District Magistrate to raise the dispute by making an application. In the present case tenant had not made any application under Section 8 of the Act, to the District Magistrate. If he had made such an application he could have raised the question of the accommodation having fallen down or such other plea as were open to him for the settlement of the amount of standard rent. He having not done so, the landlord was entitled to charge the standard rent as determined under Section 3(k) and demanded under Section 5 of the Act." 6. In my view, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is correct, and, therefore, the order of the revisional court cannot be allowed to stand. I may also point out that the re visional court while disallowing the relief for ejectment, granted a decree for rent from 18-8-1972 till the date of re visional judgment. This course is not permissible in law. Arrears of rent were claimed to the suit till a date which was anterior to the institution of the suit. As the copy of plaint is not before me, therefore, it is difficult to say anything with precision but normally the arrears of rent are claimed till the dale when the tenancy stands determined by the notice under section 106/ 111 T.P. Act. Thereafter, the tenant is liable to pay damages for his illegal occupation of the accommodation and normally in a suit between the landlord and tenant the landlord claims the relief of ejectment, the arrears of rent, arrears of damages for use and occupation till the date of suit and damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future till the eviction of the defendant (ex-tenant). In such a suit if the court holds that the tenant is not liable for ejectment and the tenancy subsists, then no decree for damages for use and occupation can be granted against the tenant. Only arrears of rent due upto a date prior to the date of the suit can alone be decreed in such a suit. In such a suit if the court holds that the tenant is not liable for ejectment and the tenancy subsists, then no decree for damages for use and occupation can be granted against the tenant. Only arrears of rent due upto a date prior to the date of the suit can alone be decreed in such a suit. But it seems to me that the judgment of the trial court is also such as is liable to be set aside. The trial court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 42.20. In its judgment it is stated that the first assessment of the accommodation was made in the year 1946-47 and at that time it was done on the basis of the rent of Rs. 27/- and thereafter the rent came down to Rs. 22/- p m. and therefore, the municipal assessment was also decreased to Rs. 22/- per month. I confess that the position is not very clear on the basis of the said statement. In this connection attention may be, drawn to sections 141 to 147 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Briefly, the position is that under the U.P. Municipalities Act normally a quinquennial assessment is made which lasts for a period of five years. This is clear from section 145(2) of the Act. The procedure for making such quinquennial assessment is given in sections 141 to 144 According to sub-section (2) of section 145 such quinquennial assessment list remains valid until the first day of April next following the completion of a new list. Therefore, the quinquennial assessment always come into force on 1st April, and it never takes effect on any other date. In contrast section 147 provides for what is known as periodical assessment. The quinquennial assessment which ordinarily remains in currency for a period of five years, is liable to be amended and altered during the said period in the circumstances which are mentioned in section 147(1). As a result of such amendment and alterations, the assessment gets amended or altered even during the normal period of five years. The amendment or alteration takes effect from the date on which the next instalment falls due. It is well known that one instalment falls due on 1st April and the next instalment on 1st October, in each financial year in respect of house-tax and water-tax assessed on a building. 7. The amendment or alteration takes effect from the date on which the next instalment falls due. It is well known that one instalment falls due on 1st April and the next instalment on 1st October, in each financial year in respect of house-tax and water-tax assessed on a building. 7. From the judgment of the trial court it is not clear as to whether the assessment relied upon by the trial court was a quinquennial assessment under section 145 of the U. P. Municipalities Act or the periodical assessment under section 147. It is also not clear as to how the reduction was effected from Rs. 27/- to Rs. 22/- per month, and with effect from which date such reduction came into force. All these questions had to be considered before the court could fix the standard rent payable by the tenant to the landlords. Accordingly, it has seemed to me that in the instant case I should quash both the judgments but remand the case to the trial court for a fresh decision of the suit. However, I make it clear that the trial court will proceed on the basis that the tenant was liable to pay the standard rent and there was no necessity for any recourse to section 8 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. However, what should be the figure of the standard rent, will be redetermined by the trial court in the light of the observations which I have made above. The question of default, the liability to be evicted, the amount of rent in arrears and the rate of damages for use and occupation will all have to be decided in the light of the trial court's fresh decision on the question of the amount of the standard rent payable by the tenant to the landlords. It will be open to the parties to lead additional documentary evidence regarding the nature of the said Municipal assessment only. 8. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and both the impugned judgments namely that of the trial court and that of the revisional court are hereby quashed and the case is remanded to the trial court with the afore said directions. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.