A declaration under Section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, that the operation of certain transactions shall remain suspended, is prospective and not retrospective, and therefore, it does not automatically stay pending proceedings for enforcement of rights, privileges, etc., unless the declaration is made in terms of the second fold of sub-section (3), which relates to rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accruing or arising thereunder.

( 1 ) -THE present Revisional application is directed against Order No. 60 dated 3rd of July, 1992 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 84 of 1988. By the impugned order, the learned Assistant District Judge rejected an-application, preferred on behalf of the Revisional petitioner, for stay of further proceedings in the connected suit.

( 2 ) THE Title suit mentioned hereinabove is one for eviction of the Revisional petitioner, as a licensee, from the disputed property, though tile defence of the Revisional petitioner, in tile said suit, is based on claim of tenancy.

( 3 ) IT appears that on several occasions this Hon'ble Court had to be moved in Revision, at different stages, of tile said Title suit. The present Revisional application, as stated hereinabove, arises out of rejection of a prayer for stay made on behalf of the Revisional petitioner, the prayer for stay is based, in its turn, on an order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in Case No. 293 of 1987 dated 10. 2. 1992. Admittedly, the petitioner has been declared as a sick industrial undertaking and there has been directions also in terms of section 17 (3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 for enquiry into its working and for framing of a scheme for its rehabilitation. The Industrial development Bank of India has been appointed to act as operating agency to prepare the said scheme.

( 4 ) THE petitioner on or about 12th of August, 1991 made an application under section 22 (3) of the aforesaid Act, inter alia, praying for a declaration that any right, privilege, obligation, liability etc. should remain suspended and upon consideration of the said application, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction by its above-mentioned order dated 10th of February, 1992 issued a declaration, which, it would be convenient for us, to quote here as follows :-". . . . . . . . . . Since the BIFR is determining measures for revival of the sick company under section 18 of the Act we are satisfied that the company needs protection under the Act so as to save considerable amount being incurred by the company on litigation, we are also satisfied about the reasonableness of the prayer of the company made in its application dated 12. 8. 1991. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred on us by section 22 (3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 we declare that the operation of all or any of the contracts, assurances of property agreements, settlements awards, standing orders or other instruments in force to which the sick industrial Company is a party or which may be applicable to the Sick Industrial Company immediately before the date of this declaration shall remain suspended for a period of one year or till the finalisation of a rehabilitation scheme, whichever is earlier". We have not purposely quoted the entire order of the Board as we do not propose to express any view as to whether the manner in which the grounds made out by the petitioner had been dealt with by the Board, such order should have ended with a declaration, as prayed for by tire petitioner and would have attracted the operation of Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 22 of the said Act or not. In this context, before dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner in course of hearing of he Revisional application regarding the propriety of the order passed by the trial Court, we would like to place it on record that the order of the trial Court discloses no effective ground of reason or which the prayer for refusal of stay can be sustained, but since as a Revisional Court we can test the propriety of the conclusion in the perspective of such grounds and reasons, after hearing the contesting parties, we have done so.

( 5 ) SECTION 22 (3) of the aforesaid Act runs as follows :-"during the period of consideration of my scheme under section 18 or whe