JUDGMENT H.L. Agrawal, J. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against an order passed under section 11A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the following circumstances. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question, and it was given in lease under a registered document for a fixed period from the 1st of July, 1968 to the 30th of June, 1970, that is, for two years the agreed rate of rent being Rs. 425 only per month. After the expiry, of the period, the tenant having failed to vacate the premises, a title suit has been instituted in the court below, which is pending for disposal. On the written statement having been filed by the defendants, the petitioner applied in the court below for an order to the tenant to deposit the arrears of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 425/-and the current and future rents. It appears that immediately after the institution of the title suit, the defendants filed an application before the Controller under section 5 of the Act for fixation of fair rent of the premises in question. This application was filed on the 22nd September, 1970, and the title suit in question was filed on the 16th, September, 1970. The Controller has determined the fair rent of the premises in question by his order dated the 23rd November, 1970 at Rs. 70/- per month. The case of the petitioner is that the fair rent proceeding was all ex-parte and, against the order passed in the said proceeding an appeal is pending before the Deputy Commissioner. Be that as it may, the learned Subordinate Judge after considering the various pleas set up by the defendants in the matter under section 11A of the Act, passed the impugned order in favour of the opposite parties. In this order, he has held that the defendants will make a deposit of the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month only from the 22nd June, 1970 as also the current and future rents at the same rate. In this order, he has held that the defendants will make a deposit of the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month only from the 22nd June, 1970 as also the current and future rents at the same rate. This date, namely, 22nd of June, 1970 has been determined by him ,with reference to the second proviso to section 8(3) of the Act which provides that the Controller, while determining the fair rent of a building, has to appoint a date with effect from which the same is to take effect. Under the second proviso, a limitation has been put upon the power of the Controller in relation to the appointment of the date with effect from which the fair rent has to take effect. The proviso lays down that "the fair rent shall not take effect from any date earlier than three months prior to the date on which the application was made or, as the case may be, the proceedings were started by the Controller on his own motion". 2. Admittedly, on the facts of this case, the application for determination of fair rent of the premises was made by the tenants opposite party, on the 22nd September, 1970, and it was open to the Controller by virtue of above provision to appoint a date going back up to the 22nd June, 1970, from which date the fair rent might take effect. Therefore, having not determined the date, a question arises as to whether the Civil Court could determine the same. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that if the Controller himself did not exercise the power under section 8(3) of the Act, it was not open to the Civil Court to usurp the jurisdiction of Controller and determine the date, as under the second provision that was the extreme limit from which date the fair rent might take effect. The controller was not bound in each and every case to give effect to the fair rent from a date indicated in the said proviso, that is, from a period anterior to the date of the application, rather a limitation has been imposed upon his powers and he mayor may not exercise the power in each case. The controller was not bound in each and every case to give effect to the fair rent from a date indicated in the said proviso, that is, from a period anterior to the date of the application, rather a limitation has been imposed upon his powers and he mayor may not exercise the power in each case. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, however, contended that if this power could be exercised by the Controller himself, there was no reason why such a power could not be exercised by the Civil Court to determine this date, and, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge determining the said date from which the fair rent in question had to take effect is not vitiated. It is difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party. In my opinion, the power conferred upon the Controller is a power which can be exercised exclusively by him and the same cannot be exercised by a Civil Court. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Controller to determine and appoint a date with effect from which the fair rent has to be determined. If the power is not exercised and nothing is indicated in the order determining a fair rent to that effect, then by no stretch of imagination, any restrospectivity can be applied to an order to the detriment of any party. In that case, the order must have a prospective operation. It is well settled that the intention to apply a provision from a retrospective effect must be clearly indicated by the authority concerned, otherwise it must be prospective. Applying the same test to the facts of this case, I am definite in my view that the order dated the 23rd November, 1970, passed by the Controller under section 5 of the Act could not have been applied from a retrospective date by the learned Subordinate Judge. The order must have its force, if not from a later date, then at best from the date of the order itself, that is, 23rd of November, 1970. In determining the date of the application of the order with effect from a period earlier than that, the court below pas committed an apparent error of jurisdiction and his order to this extent cannot be sustained. In determining the date of the application of the order with effect from a period earlier than that, the court below pas committed an apparent error of jurisdiction and his order to this extent cannot be sustained. I would, accordingly direct the learned Subordinate Judge to pass an appropriate order in view of the observations made above under section 11A of the Act. He would give effect to the rate of fair rent from the month of December, 1970 and onwards. The rents for the period prior to December, 1970 must be directed to be deposited at the contractual rate, that is, at the rate of Rs. 425/- per month. If any deposit has already been made by the defendants in pursuance of the order in question, that must be taken into consideration in giving him a fresh direction. Thus, the only question raised before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner succeeds. It may be made clear that the findings and determination of the other controversial questions in the impugned order are affirmed hereby, and they will not be reagitated in the court below by any of the parties. 4. In the result, the application is allowed in part, and the matter is remitted back to the court below for passing an appropriate and fresh order in accordance with law in view of the directions given above. The parties shall bear their own costs. Application partly allowed.