ORDER S.B. Sen, J This is a revision application against the order staying the proceedings in the suit subject to certain conditions. The facts of the case are that the non-applicant had filed a suit against the applicant for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,668.36 nP. The applicant-tenant has also filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. While the suit for arrears of rent was going on, the applicant made an application for stay of the proceedings on the ground that as he had applied for fixation of a fair rent, no decree can be passed unless the fair rent has been fixed. The application for stay was opposed by the non-applicant, but ultimately it appears, the non applicant, agreed for stay subject to certain conditions. The trial Court ordered the stay of the proceedings, but as a condition precedent, it ordered that the defendant shall either deposit the suit amount of Rs 1,668.36 nP. together with the court-fee affixed by the plaintiff to his plaint, or give a security upto the extent of Rs. 2,100 for the performance of the decree that may be passed against him. The trial Court further ordered that the defendant shall also have to pay interest at the rate of 3% per annum on the amount found due from the date of the suit till date of decree, if any. The order of the trial Court has been challenged on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. According to the applicant, the Court had certainly jurisdiction to stay the proceedings, but not to impose conditions. His contention is that section 10, Civil Procedure Code is not exhaustive and, therefore, the Court could pass an order under section 151, Civil Procedure Code exercising inherent jurisdiction. While, exercising power under section 151, the Court could not impose any condition. The argument of the applicant's counsel is that under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, there are certain provisions regarding deposit of agreed rent in the Court before the decision of the lis. While, exercising power under section 151, the Court could not impose any condition. The argument of the applicant's counsel is that under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, there are certain provisions regarding deposit of agreed rent in the Court before the decision of the lis. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out to me section 5 of the Act, under which the Court shall, on request of the landlord, order the tenant to deposit in the Court the rent payable according to the terms of the agreement from the date of filing of the suit or appeal till the decision of the suit or appeal. He further pointed out that under sub-section (1) of section 11, the Court has the same powers as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. He stated that under sub-section (2) a similar provision has been made giving the power to the Court to ask the tenant to deposit the agreed amount. According to him, therefore, these are the provisions which have been specially provided for in the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Therefore, the trial Court could not exercise such power of imposing a condition under the general powers of the Court. According to him, if section 151, Civil Procedure Code includes the power of imposing conditions, then in section 11 of the Accommodation Control Act, the same conditions would not have been specifically mentioned. According to him, the Legislature definitely meant that such power could not exist under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. He, therefore, said that no doubt the Court has power to stay, but it has no power to impose the conditions mentioned in the order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-applicant stated that the application was made under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. The Court has ordinarily no power to stay proceedings under section 11 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It is only by the exercise of inherent jurisdiction that the suit could be stayed. While exercising the inherent jurisdiction it can certainly see whether there is any abuse of the process of the Court or whether any relief which the plaintiff is otherwise getting can be given to him in the interest of justice. According to him, if the suit was not stayed, the plaintiff would certainly have got the decree against the applicant at least for a reasonable rent. According to him, if the suit was not stayed, the plaintiff would certainly have got the decree against the applicant at least for a reasonable rent. The whole dispute in this case is what is the reasonable rent. According to the applicant, the reasonable rent is different than what has been claimed by the non-applicant in the suit. I have not been shown what is the rent the applicant proposes to pay or what is the rent which is likely to be fixed by the Rent Controller. Had this data been before me, there should have been something to modify the order. In the absence of such a data, if really the Court has power, it is proper that it should ask the applicant to deposit the agreed rent. The question, therefore, is whether the Court has that power to impose the conditions. Obviously the power to stay is exercised under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the power to impose conditions can also be exercised under that section. I am aware that section 151 cannot be applied in cases where there are other provisions in the Code, which can be taken recourse to in order to get what the party wants. But here there has been no such provision. The applicant's counsel pointed out that the non-applicant could have applied for attachment before judgment under Order 38. However, this is not the position here. The non-applicant is not making an allegation against the applicant that he is going to run away or that he is going to dispose of this property. Here, it is the applicant who has gone to the Court for a stay of the suit, which cannot ordinarily be stayed. Therefore, he could not certainly ask the other side to make an application under Order 38. When a person ordinarily would get what he wanted, except for the obstruction or for some leniency, which he asked from the Court, the Court can certainly impose reasonable conditions. The provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act do point out that the Rent Control authorities have been given certain powers of the like exercised in this case, but that does not deprive the civil Court of the power which has been given to it. The provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act do point out that the Rent Control authorities have been given certain powers of the like exercised in this case, but that does not deprive the civil Court of the power which has been given to it. In the Accommodation Control Act these powers have got to be mentioned specifically because that is a special Act, and unless special mention is made, it will not be possible to find out the extent of the jurisdiction which the Rent Control authorities would be exercising. It is only to show the scope of the Rent Control authorities that such powers have been mentioned. These powers certainly cannot take way the powers that exist in the Civil Procedure Code. If that was so, it could have been specifically mentioned. The conditions imposed, according to me, are also quite reasonable. The non-applicant-landlord is being deprived of his rent because he has filed a suit. The applicant-tenant has not paid anything, nor does he propose to pay. His contention is that a fair rent should be fixed and no decree should be passed unless it is fixed. Under these circumstances, it is the non-applicant-landlord who is being deprived of the amount, which be would have otherwise got and, therefore, the imposition of the conditions is also reasonable. In view of the above as the applicant has not been able to show any error in jurisdiction, the application for revision is dismissed with costs. Application dismissed.