Judgment S.Sarwar Ali, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner foas prayed for quashing of the orders dated 12-4-1981 and 19-7-1983, copies whereof are Annexures 5 and 6 respectively, to the writ-application. Under Annexture 5 the Col-lector, in exercise of powers under Sec.16 (1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1983 (Act 4 of 1983). hereinafter called the Act, has directed the tenant, the petitioner, to deposit arrears of rent as fixed by the House Controller as also monthly rent, as envisaged under the aforesaid provision. It has further been ordered that in case of failure to deposit the rent as ordered, action, as contemplated under Sec.16 (2) of the Act, will be taken. In other words, the defence against the fair rent order shall be struck off. Anncxure 6 is the order of the Commissioner, whereby he has refused to grant the prayer for stay of the order of the Collector, a revision, application having been filed before the Commissioner against the order contained under Annexure 5. 2. Relevant facts may be stated : On 20-8-1980 a petition for fixation of fair rent under Sec. 5 read with Section 8 of the Act was filed. The Controller fixed the fair rent with effect from 20-5-1980 by order dated 28-11-1980. On 17-1-1981 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. Ordinance No. 63 of 1982 called the Bihar Building (Lea.se, Rent and Eviction) Control Ordinance, 1982 was promulgated and published in the official gazette dated 5-11-1982. By Sec.1 (3) of the said Ordinance, except for Sec.28, the other sections of the Ordinance came into force with retrospective effect from 1-4-1981. The Ordinance was followed by Act 4 of 1983. The provisions of this Act also (except Sec.28) came into force from 1-4-1981. On 9-12-1982 a petition was filed under Sec.16 of the Act. The said application has been allowed under the order contained in An-nexure 5 on 12-4-1983 which, as already stated, is under challenge. 3. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it would be necessary to extract the whole of Sec.16 of the Act. On 9-12-1982 a petition was filed under Sec.16 of the Act. The said application has been allowed under the order contained in An-nexure 5 on 12-4-1983 which, as already stated, is under challenge. 3. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it would be necessary to extract the whole of Sec.16 of the Act. which is as follows :- - "Deposit of rent determined by the Controller during the pendency of appeal or revision :- - (1) Where the fair rent of any building has been determined by the Controller under provisions of this Act and the tenant prefers an appeal to the appellate authority against the order of the Controller or makes an application for revision to the Commissioner against the order of the appellate authority as the case may be, it shall be required of the tenant to pay the rent at the rate fixed by the Controller month to month by the fifteenth day of the following month together with arrears, if any, and he may deposit such rent in the prescribed manner stating the circumstances in which such deposit is made until the dispute regarding the fair rent has been settled between the parties. (2) The appellate authority or the Commissioner may, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, make an order for deposit of rent at such rate as may be determined, month by month and arrears of rent, if any, and in case of non-compliance of this order, the appellate authority or the Commissioner shall order the defence against the fair rent order to be struck off. The landlord may apply for permission to withdraw the amount of rent so deposited without prejudice to any other legal remedy to which he is otherwise entitled and the Court may permit him to do so." The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that order under Sec.16 of the Act can only be passed provided the order of the Controller has been passed under the provisions of this Act. This Act here means Act 4 of 1983, Consequently, if an order has been passed under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977, that could not be an order under this Act and the provisions of Sec.16 of the Act would be in-applicable in such a situation. This Act here means Act 4 of 1983, Consequently, if an order has been passed under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977, that could not be an order under this Act and the provisions of Sec.16 of the Act would be in-applicable in such a situation. In the instant case, the order of the Controller has been passed before coming into force of the Ordinance and the Act. and as such the powers under Sec.16 of the Act could not he exercised by the Collector and he was not authorised in law to direct deposit of arrears of rent or future rent. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the landlord, respondent No. 3; respondents Nos. 1 and 2 having been represented by the counsel for the State. The submission made on behalf of respondent No. 3 was adopted by the counsel for the authorities, namely, the Commissioner and the Collector. It was contended that the provisions, aforesaid, were procedural in nature and did not affect any substantive right. Consequently. the provisions would be applicable retrospectively. In relation to the contention that under the provision of this Act means Act 4 of 1983, it was con-tended that the expression should be given a liberal interpretation and should be held to include the previous law on the same subject, namely, Act 16 of 1977. It was even suggested that, if necessary, the language should be so modified as to effectuate the intention of the law makers, which in this case was that the section should be applicable to any order that has been passed fixing the rent under the provisions of an existing law. 5. In our view, the contention of the petitioner appears to be correct. It is a well settled rule of construction that it is not open to the Courts to speculate as to what was the intention of the legislature and give effect to it by doing violation to the language used in a statute. Of course, where the language is not clear or is ambiguous or the words used are capable of more than one meaning, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the intention of the legislature, taking into consideration the statutory objection, the scheme and purpose of the legislation and other relevant factors. Of course, where the language is not clear or is ambiguous or the words used are capable of more than one meaning, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the intention of the legislature, taking into consideration the statutory objection, the scheme and purpose of the legislation and other relevant factors. But it is equally well settled that where the language is plain, admitting of only one meaning, the legislature must be taken to have meant what it had plainly expressed. 6. Here the expression used in Sec.16 of the Act is "under, the provisions of this Act". This Act means the statute in which the section is incorporated : in this case Act 4 of 1983. It cannot mean an Act previously in force relating to the same subject. 7. This conclusion is reinforced if a reference is made to the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.1 of the Act. It reads- "Provided that the period between expiration of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1977 (Bihar Act XVI of 1977) and the commencement of this Act shall not- xxxxx affect any investigation or legal proceeding in respect of any such liability or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation or legal proceeding may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such, punishment may be imposed as if that Act has not expired". The effect of this proviso is that any legal proceeding in relation to a liability created under the Act of 1977 may be continued as if that Act had not expired. The effect of this saving clause is that any proceeding that was taken under the previous law may be continued and be decided according to that law. In such a situation the importance of the use of the words this Act become all the more important. 8 Learned counsel for the tenant (landlord?). the Additional Advocate General, contended that to interpret in the w:ty suggested by the counsel for the petitioner would defeat the intention of the legislature, There is no indication in Sec.16 or any other provision of the Act which would lead to the conclusion that the intention of the legislature was that Sec.16 of the Act should be applicable to a case which had been decided by the Controller under the provisions of the Act of 1977. 9. 9. Learned Advocate General suggested that it would be permissible to even modify the words used to give effect to the intention of legislature. First as already explained we do not agree that the interpretation we are giving to Sec.16 of the Act is in any way contrary to the intention of the legislature as evinced by the words used in the Act. Secondly, if at all, it could be permissible to modify the words used by the legislature only if clear reason for it was to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. We find no such reason 10. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of the Collector is based on misappreciation of the scope of his powers under Section 16 of the Act. 11. Since the parties have been heard at length and all the parties have appeared at this stage, we are passing final orders at this stage. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is allowed and the order contained in Aunexure "5" is quashed. Since Annexure 5 is being quashed, An-nexure 6 is of no effect. The Collector should proceed to decide the appeal pending before him as early as possible. This order will be without prejudice to the right of the landlord in the suit for eviction which, we are informed, has also been filed. It is expected that the appeal before the Collector shall be disposed of within three months from today.