IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3871 of 2010 1. DIPAK KUMAR S/O LATE SHRAWAN KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- MATHURIA, P.S. LAHERI, DISTT.- NALANDA 2. RAKESH KUMAR S/O LATE SHRAWAN KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- MATHURIA, P.S. LAHERI, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SATYADEO PRASAD S/O LATE HIRA LAL R/O MOHALLA- JHING NAGAR, P.S. BIHAR, DISTT.- NALANDA 3. JYOTISH KUMAR S/O LATE PANNA LAL R/O MOHALLA- JHING NAGAR, P.S. BIHAR, DISTT.- NALANDA ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.D.K.Sinha, Sr.Adv For Respondents : Mr. Tej Narain Singh 2 20.4.2010 By this writ petition, petitioners challenge the order passed in Eviction Case no. 1 of 2009, pending before the learned Sub Judge-II, Biharsharif at Nalanda, dated 6.2.2010. By this order, learned Sub Judge has passed order in terms of Section 15 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 151 of 2008, which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge I, Biharsharif, Nalanda for specific performance of contract in relation to the same very suit property. Petitioners’ case is that the private- respondents, who are the landlords had agreed to sell the property to the petitioners and had taken advance upon an agreement executed in this regard. Allegedly, the respondents were not executing the sale deed and as such a Title Suit aforesaid was filed . Whereas the case of the private- respondents, who have appeared before this Court, is that they accepted the agreement but have pleaded that within the time 2 stipulated therein the sale deed was not executed by the petitioners and thus the agreement lapsed, but the petitioners have now refused to pay rent or vacate the premises. As such, eviction suit was filed and a prayer was made in terms of Section 15 thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have right to purchase the property. They cease to be the tenant and would not be liable to pay the rent. There is no relationship of landlord and the tenant. Thus, the order of learned Sub Judge-II in Eviction Case needs to be interfered with . Having heard the parties, in my view, the submission is misconceived. The very fact is that the petitioners had filed the Suit for specific performance in which they admit that private respondents are the landlords and they being occupants- tenants. Merely by executing an agreement petitioners does not get any title in the property nor its status change till sale deed is executed and registered and that is the only way by which there could be transfer of title in the property, and till then the petitioners remain tenants and thus, the order as passed by learned Sub Judge II, requires no interference The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. After the order was dictated, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that the two Suits between the same parties are in two different Courts, which may be ordered to be heard in one Court. For that, in my view, petitioners may make appropriate application , as contemplated under the Code of 3 Civil Procedure before the learned District judge, who would accordingly consider the same in accordance with law. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)