JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Kshitij Shailendra and learned counsel for respondents, Shri Vinod Swarup. 2. The counsel for petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner-tenant had been allotted the premises in question which is a shop situated at Guljarimal Dharamshala Road, Moradabad on 5.8.1996 by an order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer who fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month and allotment order was issued under Form-B. The petitioner continued to pay the said rent and there is admission on the part of landlord-respondent that there was no arrears of rent that was fixed by the competent authority i.e. Rs. 1500/- per month. In fact, some other amount relating to house tax, water tax, usage of parking and staircase and also for engaging a Chowkidar were paid by the petitioner-tenant but such payments were not specifically demarcated as payments for other expenses. The rent receipts that were issued by the landlord-respondent contained the presumptive statutory rent as fixed of Rs. 1500/- plus other expenses mentioned cumulatively. 3. The learned counsel for petitioner says that, in fact, there were quite cordial relations between the landlord and tenant and the enhanced amount that was paid for other miscellaneous expenses was by mutual agreement but such an agreement was not reduced in writing. 4. The landlord-respondent instituted SCC Suit No. 34 of 2012 (Shri Kishan Kumar Puri v. Vipla Puri) on the basis of a notice issued on 1.11.2012 alleging that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,520/- per month and that the landlord-respondent did not wish him to continue as tenant and his tenancy was being terminated instantly. Moreover, in the notice it was mentioned that since the rent was Rs. 2,520/- per month the Rent Control Act would not apply. After institution of the said SCC Suit No. 34 of 2012 praying for a decree of arrears of rent alongwith damages and for ejectment and mesne profit @ Rs. 500/- per day, the said suit was transferred in 2015 to the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad. After institution of the said SCC Suit No. 34 of 2012 praying for a decree of arrears of rent alongwith damages and for ejectment and mesne profit @ Rs. 500/- per day, the said suit was transferred in 2015 to the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad. The suit was decided against the landlord-respondent holding that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply but also that the entire sum required under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act had been paid by the petitioner tenant on the first date of hearing itself and there was no default in payment of rent. The learned trial Court found even otherwise no good ground was made for giving a decree of ejectment. 5. The landlord-respondent filed SCC Revision No. 22 of 2016 (Sri Kishan Kumar Puri v. Vipla Puri) under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act before the District Judge, Moradabad which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.4.2018. The Revisional Court observed that since the decision of trial Court on the issue of applicability of provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not challenged by the defendant-tenant, determination became final and therefore the tenant petitioner was not entitled for any protection under the Act, for example the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act. The Revisional Court instead of setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and remanding the matter if it had found some substance in the arguments raised by the landlord-respondent, decreed the suit and asked the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute and deliver its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent within a period of 30 days from the judgment. Further directions were issued for payment of rent/damages to the landlord-respondent @ Rs. 2520/- per month alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of actual possession. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that from a perusal of the allotment order dated 5.8.1996 issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in Form-B as per Rule 12 of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972, it is evident that the rent was fixed @ Rs. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that from a perusal of the allotment order dated 5.8.1996 issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in Form-B as per Rule 12 of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972, it is evident that the rent was fixed @ Rs. 1500/- per month and hence, even if by any mutual understanding payment was being made at the rate of Rs. 2,520/- per month, the same could not be treated as monthly rent of the shop to take away the protection given to the statutory tenant under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Under Section 16 (9) of the Act and Section 16(10) of the Act it is provided as follows : “Section 16 (9): The District Magistrate shall, while making an order under clause (a) of sub-section (1), also require the allottee to pay to the landlord an advance, equivalent to : (a) ...............; and (b) in any other case, one month’s presumptive rent, and on his failure to make or offer the payment within a week thereof, rescind the allotment order. Explanation.—In this sub-section the expression “presumptive rent” means an amount of rent which the District Magistrate prima facie considers reasonable having regard to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (2-A) of Section 9, provided that such amount shall not be less than the amount of rent which was payable by the last tenant, if any. 10. Nothing in sub-section (9) shall be construed to require the District Magistrate to take any evidence or hold any formal inquiry before fixing the presumptive rent of the building allotted, and the amount mentioned in the allotment order as presumptive rent shall be subject to any agreement in writing between the parties or to any subsequent determination of standard rent after formal inquiry under Section 9: Provided that until the presumptive rent is so revised by agreement or by an order under Section 9, the tenant shall continue to be liable to pay rent according to the presumptive rent specified in the allotment order, so however, that any subsequent order under Section 9 shall relate back to the date of commencement of the tenancy.” 7. In the proviso to Section 16 sub-section 10 there is a specific mention that amount of presumptive rent shall be subject to any agreement in writing between the parties or to any subsequent determination of standard rent and unless that presumptive rent is revised by an agreement in writing or by an order under Sub-section 9 the tenant shall continue to be liable to pay the rent according to the presumptive rent fixed and specified in the allotment order. 8. It is undisputed that there was no agreement in writing between the tenant-petitioner and the landlord-respondent and no application for enhancement of rent was made by the landlord to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Therefore, it should not have been presumed by the learned Revisional Court that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 9. Shri Vinod Swarup, Advocate, appearing for the respondent has said that the contention that petitioner-tenant was paying other expenses relating to house- tax and water tax, for usage of parking and staircase and payment for Chowkidar etc. cannot be believed as house tax and water tax are part of the rent under Section 7 of the Act and there is no parking space and there is no Chowkidar and the staircase is not meant for the use of the tenant. He has also submitted that on the basis of a mutual agreement the enhanced rent of Rs. 2,520/- per month was being paid and it is open for a tenant to make an agreement with his landlord even though it is not reduced in writing and he can pay the enhanced rent for the facility of using the tenanted premises continuously and not being forced to shift out of the premises by not paying enhanced rent under changed circumstances. 10. However, this Court finds that since the allotment order was issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the rent was fixed under Section 16 (9) of the Act and there is a specific provision for enhancement of the rent under Section 16(10) of the Act, the language of the Act cannot be rendered redundant by any action taken on mutual agreement between the parties. Since the words used in Sub-section 10 of Section 16 relate to an agreement in writing between the parties, it cannot be said that any agreement which is oral in nature would also be included in the words “any agreement in writing.” 11. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Milap Chandra Jain v. Roop Kishore and others, 2014(3) ADJ 525 , paragraphs - 15, 16, 17 and 21 thereof, which say that tenancy can either be contractual or statutory. If it is a contractual tenancy it shall be governed by the principle of “offer and acceptance” and parties are free to agree for a fair and reasonable rent and for its enhancement periodically or on happening of a particular event or circumstance. The offer of rate of rent made by one party and accepted by another either expressly or implied would result in settlement of rent. However, where tenancy is statutory the fixation or enhancement of rent is dependent upon the statute under which it is created. It cannot be unilaterally fixed either by the landlord or by the tenant. In a statutory tenancy rent once fixed either with agreement of the parties or by the authority competent may not be allowed to remain static but it cannot be enhanced otherwise than following the procedure prescribed in the Statute. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that even though some disagreement was expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Neena Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(1) ADJ 413 (DB) with the proposition of law laid down in Milap Chandra Jain v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (2) ARC 488 , there is no observation with regard to Milap Chandra Jain v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (2) ARC 488 in so far as it mentions that in a statutory tenancy its enhancement has to be either by an agreement in writing between tenant and landlord or through an order of enhancement by a competent authority under the Statute. 13. Shri Vinod Swarup has very fairly stated that there cannot be any quarrel with regard to following the language of the Act as the language in the Act is supreme and in that case he does not wish to pursue the matter further. 14. 13. Shri Vinod Swarup has very fairly stated that there cannot be any quarrel with regard to following the language of the Act as the language in the Act is supreme and in that case he does not wish to pursue the matter further. 14. I have gone through the judgment of learned District Judge, Moradabad in SCC Revision No. 22 of 2016 (Shri Kishan Kumar Puri v. Smt. Vipla Puri), which proceeds on the assumption that on payment of rent at enhanced rate was being made by the tenant-petitioner, it could not be said that he was still governed by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as the pecuniary limit in the exemption clause is of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The other grounds raised by the landlord-respondent in his notice as well as in his suit praying for eviction of the tenant was regarding the material alternations and damages to the shop in question. The learned Revisional Court has made certain observations but has refused to enter into the process of reassessment of the evidence led by the parties by saying that Hon’ble Supreme Court has propounded in several judgments that reassessment of the evidence by Revisional Court in a Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act on the ground that trial Court erroneously recorded a finding cannot be done. In case the argument of landlord was to be accepted it would require reassessment of the evidence, which was not permissible under revisional jurisdiction. The other finding relating to facts recorded by the learned trial Court were not interfered with by the Revisional Court by discussing them in detail but were interfered with in a cryptic and cursory manner. 15. Having gone through the judgment impugned, this Court finds that the protection given to a statutory tenant by the language of the Act has been overlooked by the learned Courts below. Hence, the judgment of the Revisional Court and of the trial Court in so far as they hold that rent of the shop in question was Rs. 2,520- per month are liable to be set aside on this ground alone and are hereby set aside. 16. The petition stands allowed to this extent.