Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) A learned Single Judge of this Court has referred this case to a larger Bench because he felt that there was a conflict of opini on between two single Judge decisions on the question whether the Commis sioner while seized of a revision under Section 3 (3), Rent Control Act, had power to pass an interim order of stay. In Dr. B. N. Bhallav v. B. P. Gupta, 1957 All LJ 704 it was held that the Commis sioner had power to pass orders of stay, while in Ram Deo v. Devi Prasad Kak kar, S. A. No. 4569 of 1963, D/- 7-10-1964 (All) a contrary view was taken. Another question upon which the learn ed single Judge felt doubtful was whe ther the order of a stay granted by the Commissioner took effect from the mo ment it was passed or became effective on service upon the parties. He, there fore., referred the aforesaid questions to a larger Bench.
(2.) AFTER this reference a Full Bench of this Court in Baleshwar Dayal v. State of U. P., Spl. Appeal No. 41 of 1969 (reported in AIR 1972 All 12 (FB)) has unanimously held that the State Government has got power to pass a stay order while acting under Section 7-F of the Rent' Control Act. It was also decided that a stay order passed by the State Government becomes effec tive from the time it is communicated to the party concerned. Under Sec tion 3 (3) of the Act the Commissioner is to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order pass ed by the District Magistrate or as to the regularity of proceedings held be fore him, and he may alter or reverse that order or make such other order as may be just and proper. Under Section 7-F the State Government can call for the record of any case and can make such order as appears to it necessary for the ends of justice. The ambit of the power conferred upon the Commissioner as well as the State Government ap pears to be similar in its nature and character. Both authorities can pass orders in the interest of justice or in other words as may be just and pro per. The power under Section 7-F has been construed to include the power to grant an interim stay order. In our opinion, this power to make interim stay orders equally flows from the power conferred on the Commissioner by Sec tion 3 (3). We would, therefore, hold that the Commissioner while seized of a revision under Section 3 (3) has power to issue stay orders. The view of the Full Bench that such stay orders become effective only from the time of communication to the concerned party is eqaully applica ble to the stay order passed by the Commissioner. In the result, we would answer the referred questions as fol lows: (1) The Commissioner has power to pass stay orders while seized of a revision under Section 3 (3), Rent Control Act; and (2) The stay orders passed by the Commissioner became effective from the moment of their communication to the concerned party. Let' the papers of the case be re turned to the learned Single Judge with these answers. Reference answered accordingly.;