JUDGMENT : S.C. Verma, J. The present petition is directed against the order dated 25-2-1986 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur and the order dated 4-3-1987 passed by the III AddlDistrict Judge, Gorakhpur decreeing the Plaintiffs suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits. 2. The Respondent No. 3 filed the suit against Hanuman Prasad, Defendant No. 1, here in Petitioner, and also impleaded Hari Ram, Defendant No. 2 who has been sublet part of the accommodation unauthorisedly. According to the case set up in the plaint, the disputed building was erected before 1946 and was assessed in July 1959. The Defendant No. 1 was in occupation of the premises since before 1946 on a rent of Rs. 41/- per month and after the enforcement of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, herein after referred to as the Act, the rent was raised to Rs. 64.06 as the standard rent with effect from 15-7-1972. The Defendant No. 1 committed default in the payment of rent and he was in arreas to the extent of Rs. 7110/50. The Defendant No. 1 although made various deposits u/s 7-C of U.P. Act 3 of 1947, here in after referred to as the old Act, and u/s 30 of the Act but even after the setting off the amount he was in arrears of rent for more than 4 months when the notice of demand dated 16-4-1979 was served on him. The allegations of sub-letting and material alterations were also made. The suit was instituted for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1950.50 as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 64.06 per month and damages for use and occupation from the date of the suit till the date of recovery of possession. 3. The suit was contested on the ground that the rate of rent was initially Rs. 28/14/- per month which was raised to Rs. 41/- per month. After the property was purchased by the Plaintiff, he declined to accept the rent which was then deposited from October 1969 u/s 7-C of the Old Act and with effect from 15-7-1972 to February, 1979 at the rate of Rs. 51.25. The allegation of sub-letting and material alterations were also denied. 4. The trial court held that the rent in respect of the accommodation was Rs. 51.25. The allegation of sub-letting and material alterations were also denied. 4. The trial court held that the rent in respect of the accommodation was Rs. 64.06 as claimed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant was in default of more than 4 months when the notice was served. Hence liable for ejectment. The other pleas regarding sub-letting and material alteration were decided in favour of the contesting tenant. 5. The revision filed by the Defendant has also been dismissed by the III Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur upholding the view taken by the trial court. 6. In the present writ petition, a short controversy is involved as to whether the rent of the accommodation will be Rs. 64.06 as claimed by the Plaintiff or Rs. 51.25 as claimed by the Defendant, as admittedly in case the monthly rent is held to be Rs. 64.06 per month, the Petitioner shall be in default of payment of rent. On the other hand, in case the monthly rent is held to be Rs. 51.25, valid deposits are made to save him from the decree of ejectment. 7. It is not disputed that the Petitioner was in occupation of the disputed accommodation as a tenant since before the enforcement of the Old Act and since July 1951, during the continuance of tenancy, agreed rent became Rs. 41/- per month. It is further admitted that the Petitioner received notice from the landlord for enhancement of rent by 25 percent as effective from 15-7-1972 under the Act. 8. Before I deal with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at this stage, it would be necessary to clearly state the averments made in the notice of enhancement of rent dated 7-10-1972. That your are a tenant under my aforesaid client in the following accommodation whose Municipal assessment of Rs. 492/- per annum The reasonable annual rent there of is Rs. 615/-. The said reasonable annual rent is being raised to Rs. 768.75 (Seven hundred Sixty eight and seventy five paisa only) being the standard rent of the accommodation payable under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and you are liable to pay rent at Rs. 64.06 p. per month with effect from 15-7-72. Arrears of rent from 1-1-70 to 14-7-72 Rs. 1250.50p @ Rs. 41/- P.M. Arrears of rent from 15-7-72 to 30-9-72 Rs. 64.06 p. per month with effect from 15-7-72. Arrears of rent from 1-1-70 to 14-7-72 Rs. 1250.50p @ Rs. 41/- P.M. Arrears of rent from 15-7-72 to 30-9-72 Rs. 160.15p @ Rs. 64.06 P. Water Tax from 3-7-69 to 30-9-72 Rs. 192.00 HOUSE Tax from - 3-7-69 to 30-9-72 Rs. 144.00 TOTAL PAYABLE Rs. 1746.65P 9. Thus from the notice it is clear that the agreed rent of Rs. 41/- was different from the reasonable annual rent and since the reasonable annual rent was greater, the same was raised by 25 per cent. This claim appears to have been made on the basis of the provisions of Section 3(K) of the Act read with the provisions of Section 2(F) of the Old Act. Section 3(K) reads as under. (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, there on, which ever is greater. (b) Where there is no agreed rent but there is a reasonable annual rent, the reasonable rent plus 25 per cent there on; (c) Where there is neither agreed rent nor reasonable annual rent, the rent as determined u/s 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 u/s 9. Section 2(f) of the Old Act reproduced in the Schedule, "reasonable annual rent" reads as under. 2. (F) Reasonable annual rent, in the case of accommodation constructed before July 1, 1946, means. (1) If it is separately assessed in municipal assessment, its municipal assessment plus 25 per cent there on; (2) If it is a part only of the accommodation so assessed, the proportionate amount of the municipal assessment of such accommodation plus 25 per cent there on. (3) If it is not assessed to municipal assessment- (i) But was held by a tenant on rent between April 1, 1942 and June 30, 1946. (3) If it is not assessed to municipal assessment- (i) But was held by a tenant on rent between April 1, 1942 and June 30, 1946. Fifteen times the rent for the one month nearest to and after April 1, 1942, and (ii) It is was not so held on rent, the amount determined u/s 3-A, and in the case of accommodation, constructed on or after July, 1; 1946, means the rent determined in accordance with Section 8-A. 10. In the present case, there is both agreed rent as well as reasonable annual rent. As stated above, the Municipal assessment of the building was done in the year 1959 and thus according to the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Old Act, the reasonable annual rent in respect of the accommodation at the time of the enforcement of the Act would be municipal assessed rent plus 25 per cent i.e. Rs. 51.25. Applying the provisions of Section 3(K) of the Act, the standard rent would be the reasonable annual rent i.e. Rs. 51.25 being greater than the agreed rent, plus 25 per cent there on i.e. Rs. 64.06 per month. 11. The provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act make it further clear that except as provided in Sections 5, 6, 7, (8, 9-A 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. 12. The provisions of Section 5 of the Act arc quoted below. 5. Rent payable in case of Old buildings. In the case of a tenancy continuing 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. 13. In accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the landlord has by notice in writing enhanced the rent to an amount not exceeding the standard rent and this enhanced rent became payable from the commencement of this Act. 13. In accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the landlord has by notice in writing enhanced the rent to an amount not exceeding the standard rent and this enhanced rent became payable from the commencement of this Act. Since the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act are subject to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the reasonable annual rent plus 25 per cent which was less than the standard rent would be the amount payable from the date of the commencement of the Act and not the agreed rent prior to the commencement of the Act. 14. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner failed to appreciate that in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(K) of the Act, in case where there in both agreed rent as well as reasonable annual rent calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Old Act, the amount whichever is greater shall be enhanced by 25 per cent. In the present case, as the agreed rent of Rs. 41/- and the municipal assessed rent of Rs. 41/- were the same, but according to the definition of Section 2(f) of the Old Act, the municipal assessed rent plus 25 per cent would be the reasonable annual rent i.e. Rs. 41/- plus 25 per cent = Rs. 51.25. The reasonable annual rent being greater, the standard rent would be the reasonable annual rent Rs. 51.25 plus 25 per cent = Rs. 64.06. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Petitioner gave any reply to the notice of the landlord dated 7-10-1972 nor there was any adjudication with regard to determinaton of standard rent u/s 8 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited the case Shiv Charan Das v. Dilip Snigh Vaish 1981 ARC 584, in support of his argument. In my opinion, this case does not support his proposition. On the other hand, the principle laid down for calculation of standard rent is in conformity to what has been stated above. It has been rightly held that 25 per cent of rent has to be added to the reasonable annual rent or the agreed rent. Which of the two is greater. It has further been held that 25 per cent cannot be added to the agreed rent twice. It has been rightly held that 25 per cent of rent has to be added to the reasonable annual rent or the agreed rent. Which of the two is greater. It has further been held that 25 per cent cannot be added to the agreed rent twice. In the above noted case, there was no reasonable annual rent and as such 25 per cent was not required to be added u/s 2(K)(i) to the agreed rent and thereafter another 25 per cent in accordance with Section 5 of the Act. 15. The other case Lalta Prasad v. I Additional District Judge, Bijnor 1984 (1) ARC 507, has also not laid down any contrary proposition. The enhancement u/s 5 of the Act by 25 per cent has been made to the agreed rent. In this case, the agreed rent was raised to 25 per cent to claim standard rent. In this case also, the landlord has not proved the annual reasonable rent. 16. The facts of the present case establish that the annual reasonable rent as calculated on the date of the enforcement of the Act was greater than the agreed rent and, as such, after the standard rent was calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(K) the amount was enhanced to 25 per cent to meet the requirements of Section 5 of the Act. In my opinion, the courts below have not committed any illegality or error of jurisdiction in following this method of calculation for the purposes of determining the rent which the Petitioner became liable to pay after the service of notice of demand. 17. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.