IMPORTANT POINT
Court can impose conditions while granting stay in exercise of its jurisdiction but it cannot pass any such order where appellate or revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.

2. Extent of application of revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") falls for question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) which is in the following terms:

"This Revision Petition is admitted, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the entire post arrears, by calculating the monthly rent as Rs. 12,650/-, fixed by the appellate authority from the date of fair rent control petition, named, 30.03.1992, which shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall also continue to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 12,650/- on or before 10th of every succeeding month."

3. Having regard to the point involved in this matter, it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in details. Suffice it to notice that Appellant, herein is a tenant. Respondent filed an application for fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller. The Additional District Court, Madurai (Rent Controller) fixed rent of Rs. 15,870/- per month in respect of the tenanted premises by an order dated 4.04.2000. The said amount of fair rent determined by the Rent Controller was directed to be paid from the date of filing of the said petition, viz., 30.03.1992. An appeal was preferred therefrom before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, being the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority by an order dated 27.01.2004 fixed fair rent @ Rs. 12,650/- per month for the said premises and directed the appellant to pay the same from the date of institution of the application filed before the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed a revisional application before the High Court wherein the aforementioned order was passed.

4. We are not concerned herein with the merit of the matter.

5. The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether while admitting the revision petition, the High Court could have imposed conditions as has been purported to be done by reason of the impugned judgment.

6. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, in support of the impugned order, would submit that the High Court has plenary jurisdiction to pass such an order as:

(i) its powers are implied and, thus, there need not be any express provision in this behalf;

(ii) a statute can never be exhaustive and, thus, the court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction;

(iii) the High Courts jurisdiction being plenary, it can evolve its own procedure;

(iv) the power to pass any interim order is incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction;

(v) the revisional power conferred under Section 25 of the Act is wider.

7. We would start with the last contention of the learned counsel that Section 25 of the Act confers a wide jurisdiction upon the High Court. The said jurisdiction is wider than one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revisional court, therefore, would exercise its jurisdiction if the conditions precedent laid down in Section 25 of the Act are fulfilled. The limitation of power as contained in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, is not applicable. [See Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar (1980) 4 SCC 259]

8. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law that the High Court having plenary jurisdiction has incidental or ancillary power. There cannot further be any dispute that the court in appropriate cases can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to pass an interim order.

9. It is, however, one thing to say that the court has an incidental, ancillary or inherent power, but, it is another thing to say that its revisional jurisdiction can be curtailed by imposing condition while admitting a revisional application. Inc