JUDGMENT R. B. Lal, J. 1. BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner landlady has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dt. 22-4-1980 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Rampur under section 10 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly the Act). 2. THE relevant facts are these: shop no. 27 situated in Bazar Safdarganj Rampur belongs to the petitioner Smt. Shakeela Khatun. This shop was allotted to Zaheer Ahmad respondent no. 3 by order dated 3-5-76 passed under the Act. THE landlady made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Rampur under section 9 of the Act for determination of the standard rent of the shop. THE said officer found that there was no agreed rent of the shop between the landlady and the allottee tenant (respondent no. 3). He also found that there was no reasonable annual rent or assessment of letting value of the shop in question. He having regard to the various factors mentioned in section 9, determined the standard rent of the shop at Rs. 100/- per month. THE allottee tenant Zaheer Ahmad filed rent appeal no. 4 of 1980 in the court of the District Judge, Rampur. That appeal was decided by the First Additional District Judge by judgment and order dated 22-4-80. THE learned Additional District Judge observed that the shop was an old building to which the old Act (U. P. Act III of 1947) was applicable. At the time of the coming into force of the Act a tenant was in occupation of the shop and was paying Rs. 20/- per month as rent which was agreed rent between the landlady and that tenant. Since there was agreed rent of the shop at the time when the Act came into force, section 9 of Act had no application to the shop in question. THE landlady had no right to get the standard rent fixed under section 9 of the Act. She could charge the standard rent, i. e. agreed rent plus 25 percent by serving a notice on the allottee tenant. In the result the learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Aggrieved, the landlady has filed this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. In the result the learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Aggrieved, the landlady has filed this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. THE learned counsel for the landlady has assailed the correctness of the above view of the learned Additional District Judge. He has urged that the agreed rent between the landlady and the previous tenant who was in occupation of the shop on the date of commencement of the Act, i. e. on 15th July, 1972, could not be taken as agreed rent between the landlady and the allottee tenant for purposes of section 9. Hence, the case of the petitioner was covered under the latter part of sub-section (1) cf section 9 of the Act and the application for fixation of standard rent of the shop was maintainable. THE learned counsel for the allottee, respondent no. 3, has urged that the view taken by the learned Judge was correct and, therefore, the application for fixation of standard rent was rightly rejected. " Sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act reads thus: (1) In the case of a building to which the old Act was applicable and which is let out at the time of the commencement of this Act in respect of which there is neither any reasonable annual rent, nor any agreed rent, or in any other case where there is neither any agreed rent, nor any assessment in force, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made in that behalf, determine the standard rent." Sub-section 1) of section 9 is in two parts. THE first part is applicable in a case where the following requirements are fulfilled: (a) THE building is one to which the old Act was applicable. (b) Such building is let out at the time of the commencement of the Act; and (c) THEre is neither any reasonable annual rent, nor any agreed rent in respect of such building. THE Second part is residuary in nature and is applicable in a case where the following requirements are made out: (a) THE case is one which is not covered by Part I, and (b) Where there is neither any agreed rent, nor any assessment in force in respect of the building. THE Second part is residuary in nature and is applicable in a case where the following requirements are made out: (a) THE case is one which is not covered by Part I, and (b) Where there is neither any agreed rent, nor any assessment in force in respect of the building. In a case which may fall under any of the above parts, the District Magistrate can be approached to determine the standard rent of a building in the occupation of a tenant. The important question for consideration is whether the expression 'agreed rent' occurring in the first part of sub-section (1) of section 9 refers to agreed rent between the landlord and the tenant against whom the former (landlord) is seeking to get standard rent determined; or refers to agreed rent between the landlord and any other tenant who was in occupation of the building at the time of the commencement of the Act. In my opinion, the expression 'agreed rent' should mean agreed rent between the landlord and the tenant against whom he (landlord) is seeking determination of standard rent under section 9 (1) of the Act and not agreed rent between the landlord and any previous tenant, who might have occupied the building at the time of the commencement of the Act. The words 'and which is let out at the time of the commencement of thfs Act' occurring in sub-section (1) of section 9 should also be interpreted in the same light as meaning a tenancy which was continuing from before the commencement of the Act and was in force when application for determination of standard rent was moved under section 9. It does not stand to reason that a rent which was agreed rent between the landlord and a previous tenant may be automatically taken as agreed rent between the landlord and a tenant who may | subsequently occupy the building under allotment order. 5. THE above view is consistent with the scheme of the Act relating to fixation of rent. THE relevant provisions are of sections 4 (2), 5, 9 and 3 (k) of the Act. 5. THE above view is consistent with the scheme of the Act relating to fixation of rent. THE relevant provisions are of sections 4 (2), 5, 9 and 3 (k) of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act is a general provision regarding payment of rent in respect of any building governed by the Act, and reads thus: " Except as provided in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 the rent payable for any building shall be such as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, and in the absence of any agreement, the standard rent." It is obvious that section 4 (2) speaks of rent which has been agreed upon between the landlord and the sitting tenant and not any previous tenant. This general provision is subject to the provisions of sections 5, 6, 7, S and 10. Sections 6, 7 and 8 deal with some special contingencies in which rent can be enhanced or re-fixed. Section 10 confers right of appeal against orders passed under sections 8 and 9. THEse sections are not relevant for purposes of the present case and need not be discussed. 6. SECTION 5 is in the nature of an exception to section 4 (2) and reads thus: "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 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 there for to an amount not exceeding the standard rent, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of this Act." This section provided for enhancement of rent upto standard rent, of buildings which were governed by the old Act (U. P. Act no. Ill of 1947) and in respect of which tenancies were continuing from before the commencement of the Act, by unilateral Act of the landlord if certain other conditions were fulfilled. Ill of 1947) and in respect of which tenancies were continuing from before the commencement of the Act, by unilateral Act of the landlord if certain other conditions were fulfilled. Standard rent has been defined in section 3 (k) thus : " (k) "standard rent", subject to the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 10, means- (i) in the case of a 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 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 percent thereon, whichever is greater. (b) where there is no agreed rent, but there is a reasonable annual rent, the reasonable rent plus 25 percent 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. " 7. WHAT is 'standard rent' for purposes of section 5 is to be found in items (a) and (b) of sub clause (i) of clause (k). WHAT will be 'standard rent' in other cases, is to be found in the remaining provisions of clause (k). These provisions make it clear that where there is no agreed rent or reasonable rent, or assessed letting value, then the standard rent will be the rent as determined under section 9. 8. FROM the above discussion, it follows that the expression 'agreed rent' used in sub-section (1) of section 9 means agreed rent between the landlord and the sitting tenant and not agreed rent between the landlord and any earlier tenant, who might have been in occupation of the building prior to the tenant, against whom determination of standard rent is sought. In the instant case, admittedly, there was no agreed rent between the landlady and the allottee tenant ; also there was no reasonable annual rent, or assessment of letting value of the shop in question. In the instant case, admittedly, there was no agreed rent between the landlady and the allottee tenant ; also there was no reasonable annual rent, or assessment of letting value of the shop in question. Though the shop was one governed by the old Act, the tenancy had come into existence after the commencement of the Act on account of the allotment order dated 3-5-1976. The case squarely fell within the ambit of the second part of sub-section (1) of section 9. The application for determination of standard rent was, therefore, maintainable. The contrary view taken by the learned Additional District Judge was erroneous in law and deserves to be quashed. The appeal must be reheard by the learned Judge. 9. THE writ petition is allowed. THE judgment and order dated 22-4-1980 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Rampur are quashed. THE appeal is sent back to the First Additional District Judge for disposal afresh according to law bearing in mind the observations contained in the body of this judgment. THE parties shall be given an opportunity of being heard. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.