Order 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. We are satisfied after hearing the parties that the order passed by the Commissioner dated 17.10.1995 (Annexure-1) is not strictly In accordance with law, and it would be difficult to sustain the order on legal grounds. The Commissioner was exercising the revisional powers under the relevant Rent Control Act, and, therefore, his jurisdiction was limited to fixing the fair rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. In doing so he had to test the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. He had no jurisdiction to direct payment of any part of the amount deposited by way of rent to any other person. If any person had a claim against a tenant, he could take recourse to remedies provided under the law before the appropriate authority. However, in view of the order which we are passing by consent it is not necessary for us to set aside the order of the Commissioner, as that would result in refund of large sum of money which is due to the Municipal Corporation. By consent we pass the following order. In paragraph no. 4 of the order of the Commissioner the words "to the extent to which It IS due to Municipal Corporation" shall be substituted by the words "to the extent to which the amounts have been attached in two certificate proceedings by the Municipal Corporation". 3. Thus the amounts attached in the certificate cases shall be paid to the Municipal Corporation after adjusting the amounts earlier paid against those demands. If any amount has been paid in excess of the attachment orders, the surplus amount paid shall be refunded to the petitioner. The Certificate Officer will not be justified in allowing any amount by way of interest over and above the amounts attached. If any excess amount has been paid, the same will be refunded within two months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the Certificate Officer. 4. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.