Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Upon notice to the respondents, this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the parties and considering the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing that part of the order dated 16-8-1993 (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No. 2 by which the interim order granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, (respondent No. 3-the appellate authority) as contained in Annexure 5, has been stayed. 3. It appears that petitioner No. 1 is a landlord and respondent No. 5 is the tenant under petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 5 was inducted as tenant in the year 1966 on a monthly rental of Rs. 200 per month, which was extended from time to time and in the year 1982, the rental was fixed at Rs. 700 per month, and respondent No. 5 was paying the rent. The petitioners filed an application before the Controller under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for short) for fixation of fair rent inter alia, on the ground that the total area in occupation of respondent No. 5 is about 13,216 Sq. Ft. and respondent No. 5 is using the building for his commercial purpose and is manufacturing tiles and other building materials. The rent so fixed to the respondent No. 5 was too low as the rent liability in which the building premises situated it. not less than Rs. 5 per Sq. Ft. 4. The Controller upon the petition filed by the petitioner noticed respondent No. 5 and after hearing the parties, passed final order on 1.1-6-1993 as contained in Annexure 4 and fixed "the total rental of the building at Rs. 8,436 per month. Respondent No. 5 being aggrieved by the order of the Controller filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which was numbered as Case No. 9R/15/93-94. 8,436 per month. Respondent No. 5 being aggrieved by the order of the Controller filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which was numbered as Case No. 9R/15/93-94. The said appeal was admitted on 6-8-1993 and the appellate authority in exercise of its power under Sec. 164 of the Act directed respondent No. 5 to deposit the fair rent as fixed by the Controller Respondent No. 5 thereafter preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, against the direction given by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the appellate authority) under Sec. 16(i) of the Act and the revisional Court admitted the revision on 16-8-1993 and also stayed operation of the lower court. The petitioner, therefore, has come to this Court by way of filing the present writ petition and has challenged the order as contained in Annexure 6 passed by the revisional court. 5. Mr. A. K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has stated that against the interim order passed by the appellate court under Sec. 16(1) of the Act, revision was not maintainable and the revisional court has no jurisdiction to stay the interim order passed by the appellate authority under Sec. 16(1) of the Act. Mr. Sinha, has also stated that the order as contained in Annexure 6 could not have been passed without giving prior notice to the petitioner and thus the order (Annexure 6) is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and I9(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. In this case, a counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 5 Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5, has stated that the revision was maintainable under Section . 6 of the Act against the order passed by the Controller or by the appellate authority. He further contended that Sec. 26 of the Act envisages that the Commissioner can revise any order passed by the Controller or by the appellate authority and the order passed by the appellate authority directing respondent No. 5 to deposit the fair rent even being interlocutory order comes under the mischief of any order as envisaged under Sec. 26 of the Act and, therefore, the revision was maintainable. 7. 7. Now the question to be determined in this case is as to whether an order passed under Sec. 16(1) of the Act by the appellate authority is revisable and whether the revisional court has jurisdiction to stay the order passed by the appellate authority directing the tenant to pay the rent fixed by the Controller. From a bare reading of Sec. 16(1) of the Act it appears that where fair rent of any building has been determined by the Controller under the provisions of the Act and the tenant prefers an appeal against the order of the Controller or makes as 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 15th day of the following month with arrears, if any. 8. I find that the mandate of Sec. 16(1) of the Act commands upon the appellate authority or the revisional authority to pass an order for payment of rent during the pendency of the appeal or revision, as the case may be, as fixed by the Controller and in any event the requirement of the tenant is to make such payment in the prescribed manner. In my opinion, therefore, in view of the provisions as laid down in Sec. 16(1.) of the Act, the tenant has no escape from payment of the rent fixed by the Controller and in case the rent is not deposited, the court under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 16 of the Act shall order for striking out the defence against the fair rent, after giving opportunities to the parties of being heard. 9. Mr. Debi Prasad in support of his contentions has placed reliance in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Sachidanand Sinha V/s. The Collector Patna 1989 PLJR 1141. In Dr. (2) of Sec. 16 of the Act shall order for striking out the defence against the fair rent, after giving opportunities to the parties of being heard. 9. Mr. Debi Prasad in support of his contentions has placed reliance in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Sachidanand Sinha V/s. The Collector Patna 1989 PLJR 1141. In Dr. Sachidanand Sinha, (supra) the Full Bench has answered the reference as follows ;- (1) Whenever the tenant prefers an appeal against an order of Controller determining fair rent in respect of any building or premises or makes an application for revision to the Commissioner against the order of the appellate authority he is required to deposit the rent at the rate determined by the Controller month to month by the 15th day of the following month, together with arrears, if any, during the pendency of the appeal or revision, as the case may be ; (2) The appellate authority or the Commissioner has to hear both the parties to determine as to whether the tenant has complied with the requirement of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 16 of the Act. If it is found that the tenant has not deposited the arrears of rent at the rate determined by the Controller, then the appellate authority or the Commissioner, has to direct the tenant to deposit the said amount within the time fixed by the appellate authority or the Commissioner, as the case may be, and to direct to go on depositing the rent month to month by the fifteenth day of the following month at the rate determined by the Controller. (3) If there is non-compliance of the order passed by the appellate authority or the Commissioner in exercise of the power under tub-section (2) of Section 16, then the defence against the fair rent order has to be struck off and the appeal or revision has to be heard and disposed of under Sec. 24 or 26 as if the tenant has not put up any defence against the claim of the rate of rent by the landlord before the Controller. I find that the Full Bench, in Dr. I find that the Full Bench, in Dr. Sacchidanand Sinha (supra), has reiterated that during the pendency of the appeal or revision, the tenant is duty bound to carry out the order for depositing the rent as fixed by the Controller and in case the order is not complied with the appellate authority or the revisional authority in exercise of its power under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 16 of the Act can direct for striking out the defence against the fair rent. However, the Full Bench in Dr. Sacchidanand Sinha (supra), has also held that the tenant during the pendency of the appeal or revision cannot be asked to deposit the rent at the rate different than the rent fixed by the Controller. So far the maintainability of appeal or revision against the order passed under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 16 is concerned, in paragraph 22 of its judgment the Full Bench has observed ; It is difficult to hold that unless the tenant deposits the arrears of rent at the rate fixed by the Controller, either he is not entitled to file an appeal or revision or any such appeal or revision having been entertained is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. In the instant case, I find that the appellate authority during the pendency of the appeal has directed the tenant-respondent No. 5 in exercise of his power under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 16 of the Act to deposit the rent as fixed by the Controller. I do not find anything from the order impugned that the appellate court has directed the tenant to deposit the rent at the rate different that the rate fixed by the Controller. In the case at hand, I also find that there is no order passed by the appellate authority under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 16 of the Act for striking out the defence and the only order which has been passed is under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 16 of the Act to deposit the rent as fixed by the Controller. 10. Mr. Prasad has also drawn our attention to the case of Ram Adhin Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1993 (1) PLJR 637, and in this context he contended that when the rate of rent fixed by the Controller is exhorbitant or excess, the Court has power to interfere with such order. 10. Mr. Prasad has also drawn our attention to the case of Ram Adhin Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1993 (1) PLJR 637, and in this context he contended that when the rate of rent fixed by the Controller is exhorbitant or excess, the Court has power to interfere with such order. In Ram Adhin Singh (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court was dealing with the matter where final order was passed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority under the Act. There is no direct bearing of this case in the facts and circumstances of this case, and the respondent-tenant can take the plea about arbitrariness otherwise in enhancing the rent by the Controller, in appeal preferred by it (respondent-No. 5) which is pending and in that view of the matter, this question need not be decided in this writ petition. Mr. Prasad further relied upon a decision of this Court in Ashok Chitra Private Limited V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1993 1 PLJR 524. Ashok Chitra (supra), the Bench of this Court was dealing with the situation where the Controller had fixed the fair rent with regard to a piece of vacant land and, therefore, it was held that no order for fixing the fair rent could have been passed by the Controller and non-compliance of such direction of the appellate authority to deposit the fair rent would be of no consequence in a proceeding where the order appealed against itself was without jurisdiction. In the case at hand the situation is otherwise and no rent has been fixed by the Controller with regard to a vacant piece of land in that view of the matter, the decision in Ashok Chitra (supra) has no application to the present case. 11. After hearing the parties and also considering the decision in Dr. Sacchidanand Sinha (supra) and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that revision is maintainable against the order passed under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 16 of the Act. So far the question as to whether the revisional court could have stayed the order passed by appellate authority under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 16 of the Act is concerned, it has been held by a Bench of this Court in Aid. So far the question as to whether the revisional court could have stayed the order passed by appellate authority under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 16 of the Act is concerned, it has been held by a Bench of this Court in Aid. Enam Jalil V/s. State of Bihar 1987 PLJR 1138 that the Commissioner could not have stayed operation of the order of the Controller during the pendency of the revision application. Here is the similar situation, where the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Act has stayed the operation of the order of the court below, meaning thereby he has stayed the direction of the appellate authority passed under Sub-section (1) of the Act for depositing the rent fixed by the Controller. 12. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the appellate authority has rightly directed the respondent No. 5 during the pendency of the appeal to deposit month to month rent and the arrears at the rate fixed by the Controller and the Commissioner exercise of his revisional power under Sec. 26 of the Act had no jurisdiction to staty the operation of the interim order of the appellate authority during the pendency of the revision, and thus the order passed by the revisional authority as contained in Annexure 6 to the extent of staying the operation of the order of the court below is not sustainable in law and must be quashed. 13. For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and that part of the order (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No. 2, by which the operation of the order of the lower court has been stayed is quashed. Respondent No. 5 is directed to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the month to month rent at the rate fixed by the Controller as per the direction of the appellate authority under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 16 of the Act within a week from today and respondent No. 3 is directed to dispose of the appeal by the earliest possible preferably within two months. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. N.P.Singh, J. 14 I agree.