JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. 1. THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord of shop no. 470/C situated in Bankhandi, Brindaban, District Mathura. The building is situated within the Municipal limits and the tenancy was continuing in force before coming into force of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. The landlord filed a suit against the tenant for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits. It has been found that the agreed rent between the parties was Rs. 4/- per month. The landlord had, within three months of the coming into force of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, given a notice under section 5 of the Act for enhancing the rent. 2. THE trial court found that the rent payable by the tenant was Rs. 5/-per month, i. e. agreed rent plus 25% thereof and further found that the tenant had deposited the rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month and consequently it decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. Aggrieved the respondent filed a revision. The revisional court was of the view that the building was admittedly within Municipal assessment but as the parties had led no evidence the reasonable annual rent was not known. It went on to hold that in the absence of evidence as to what was the reasonable annual rent, the standard rent as defined under section 3 (k) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 could not be determined and consequently allowing the appeal it dismissed the suit for ejectment but allowed the Suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Aggrieved the landlord has filed this writ petition. 3. THE relevant provision of law for giving notice was given under section 5 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 which runs as follows :- " In the case of tenancy continuing from before the commencement of this Act, in respect of a building 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." This section gives the right to a landlord to enhance the rent to an amount not exceeding the standard rent. 4. STANDARD rent is defined in section 3 (k) of the Act. 4. STANDARD rent is defined in section 3 (k) of the Act. The definition of the STANDARD rent, which is relevant, is reproduced below :- " ' STANDARD rent ', subject to the provisions of Sections 6 and 10 means- (i) in the case of building governed by the old Act and let out at the time of the commencement of the Act- (a) where there is both an agreed rent payable there for 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." Thus the standard rent under clause (a) of section 3 (k) will be 25 percent of the reasonable annual rent or the reasonable annual rent plus 25 percent thereon, whichever is greater. 5. IT is not necessary in every case that the reasonable annual rent should be known. Where the landlord is basing his claim for enhancement purely on the agreed rent, the agreed rent is known. In this case the agreed rent was Rs. 4/- per month. That rent could be enhanced by 25 percent. 6. IT is in those cases where the landlord wants to enhance the rent greater than agreed rent plus 25 per cent thereof, that he has to prove the reasonable annual rent. If the annual reasonable rent is greater than the agreed rent, then the maximum of the standard rent will be the reasonable annual rent plus 25 per cent thereon. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment reported in the case of Ram Dutt Pathak v. District Judge, Nainital, 1980 ALJ 179. In that case an argument was raised that the words 'whichever is greater' occurring in clause (a) of Section 3 (k) are surplusage. This argument was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge after rejecting the argument had gone to observe : " The present case is covered by cl. (a) as there is both agreed rent and reasonable annual rent available. Clause (b) deals with the situation where there is no agreed rent and there is available a reasonable annual rent. Clause (c) deals with the situation where there is neither agreed rent nor annual reasonable rent available. (a) as there is both agreed rent and reasonable annual rent available. Clause (b) deals with the situation where there is no agreed rent and there is available a reasonable annual rent. Clause (c) deals with the situation where there is neither agreed rent nor annual reasonable rent available. That being so, I find no justification for holding that the words " whichever is greater " are surplus. The language of clause (a) is clear and explicit. In the present case there being both agreed rent and annual reasonable rent and inasmuch as, annual reasonable rent plus 25% thereof is indisputably greater than the agreed rent, it is the former, that is the annual reasonable rent plus 25% thereof which would be the standard rent." This decision, to my mind, is directly against the respondent. 7. THE next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is reported in the case of Ram Prasad v. District Judge, Dehradun, 1979 ARC 35. In that case the agreed rent was Rs. 18500/-. THE building in question was assessed to Rs. 18600/-. THE standard rent was fixed adding 25 per cent of the sum of Rs. 18600/- which was municipal assessment. THE standard rent came to Rs. 23250/-. THE learned Judge held that this could be enhanced by adding 25% of the rent and held that the standard rent would be Rs. 29062-50 Paise. THE learned Judge has taken into account section 3 (k) while making this calculation. This decision is also against the respondent. In the circumstances, I find that there is manifest error in the judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Mathura, dated 23-2-1980. 8. THE learned counsel for the respondent has strongly relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Charan Das. v. Dilip Singh Vaish, 1981 ARC 584. That case was concerned with the question as to what was the maximum possible extent of enhancement under the provision of Section 5 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. THE agreed rent in that case was Rs. 132/- per month. THE plaintiff wanted to get the rent fixed at Rs. 190-91 per month. THE courts below had determined the rent at Rs. 140-25 per month. THE plaintiff had filed a revision against that determination. THE agreed rent in that case was Rs. 132/- per month. THE plaintiff wanted to get the rent fixed at Rs. 190-91 per month. THE courts below had determined the rent at Rs. 140-25 per month. THE plaintiff had filed a revision against that determination. THE learned Judge held that wherever the reasonable annual rent is higher than the agreed rent 25 per cent can be added to that to determine the standard rent of an accommodation. This case is not an authority for the proposition that an enhancement of the rent of a tenant cannot be made by the landlord on the basis of agreed rent unless the reasonable annual rent is also known. Consequently I allow the writ petition, quash the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mathura, and direct that the revision be heard and disposed of in accordance with the observations made in this judgment. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Parties may obtain a certified copy of the judgment and produce it before the revisional court so that it can fix a date for disposal of the revision. Parties may appear before the revisional court with certified copy of the judgment on 5-1-1984. Petition allowed.