JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. - The Judgment and order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Meerut, acting on Small Cause side dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 5155 as arrears of rent and Rs. 280/- as means profits and ejectment of the petitioner is subject matter of challenge in this revision. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit that the premises in dispute were allotted to the defendant on 4-9-72 and took possession of the same on 5-9-72 but had not paid rent despite service of notice. The house was constructed in the year 1965 and its first assessment was made on 28th March, 1967 which came into force with effect from 1-4-1967 and under the said assessment the letting value of the house was Rs. 90/- which was subsequently increased to Rs. 120/- with effect from 1-4-1976 and the previous tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month and as such the opposite party-defendant was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month and in the alternative was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month. 3. The defence of the defendant was that the standard rent was assessed at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on his application vide his order dated 22-3-1974. As such he deposited the rent in court after refusal of the same by the plaintiff and there was no default on his part. The maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the court were also challenged. 4. The trial court framed certain issues and the parties went on trial in respect of those issues. It was not in dispute that provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the premises and U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not applicable. It was also not in dispute between the parties that there was no agreement between the parties regarding rate of rent. It was not in dispute that provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the premises and U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not applicable. It was also not in dispute between the parties that there was no agreement between the parties regarding rate of rent. The court below took the view that it has jurisdiction to fix the amount of rent payable by the defendant in respect of the premises in dispute and further there being no agreement between the parties, the defendant could not he ejected from the premises in dispute in view of provisions of section 2 1 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 5. In this case the admitted position is thus that the provisions of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act were not applicable and U. P Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the premises in dispute. As such the provisions of the said Act in so far as they are applicable alone can be applied. The authority which is to determine the standard rent has been prescribed in the Act itself. The standard rent has been defined in section 3(k) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 which reads as under : "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 therefore 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, whichever is greater. (b) where there is no agreed rent, but there is reasonable annual rent, the reasonable rent plus 25 per cent 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". (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 premises not being governed by U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the provisions of section 3(k)(ii) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can only apply. In view of the fact that section 3(k)(ii) of the Act is applicable, the standard rent can be determined in the manner prescribed in section 8 of the Act. The finding of the court below that it had no jurisdiction to determine the rent as there was no agreed rent between the parties has also been assailed. The Judge Small Causes has taken the view that under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the rent is to be determined by the District Magistrate and finally attached to that order under section 37 of the Act. As such the civil court jurisdiction was expressly as well as by implication ousted. In the instant case a forum for determining the rent has been prescribed in the Act itself which confers a power on a particular court or authority to decide matter in a particular manner and that authority or court will alone decide the same and the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matter is thus by implication ousted. The analogy of section 3-A of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act dealing with the determination of annual rent cannot be drawn in view of the fact that section 3-A provides that the said determination was subject to any suit filed under sub-section (4) of section 5 and the rent so declared or determined shall be the annual reason able rent of the accommodation. 6. Learned counsel then contended that a finding on issue No. 1 har not been correctly recorded by the court below and it has not taken into consideration the correct legal position. The contention raised by the learned counsel is not without force, but as the suit of the plaintiff' has been dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and even if incorrect finding has been recorded against him that will not obviously be a bar against his agitating the said matter again. The contention raised by the learned counsel is not without force, but as the suit of the plaintiff' has been dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and even if incorrect finding has been recorded against him that will not obviously be a bar against his agitating the said matter again. The view of law taken by the court below on the point of jurisdiction thus cannot be said to be illegal or against the provisions of law. As such the revision application is liable to be dismissed. 7. The revision is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.