IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1287 of 2007 1. Dinesh Chandra Pathak son of Surya Narayan Pathak 2. Ajit Kumar Pathak son of Sri Dinesh Chandra Pathak 3. Ajay Kumar Pathak son of Sri Dinesh Chandra Pathak All resident of Surya Niwas Mohalla Bhaikhanpur P.S.Kotwali Dist. Bhagalpur Plaintiffs- petitioners Versus 1. Ahilya Devi W/o Late Krishnadeo Narayan Mishra 2. Mukesh Mishra son of Late Krishnadeo Narayan Mishra 3. Rajesh Mishra son of Late Krishnadeo Narayan Mishra All resident of Motilal Mishra Lane Mohalla Bhaikhanpur P.S.Kotwali Dist. Bhagalpur Defendants- Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr R.K. Sinha no.2 , Advocate Mr Satyendra Kumar For the Opposite parties: Mr Ajay Kumar Ambastha, Advocate Mr Bishwajit Kumar, Advocate Mr Dipak Kumar Sinha, Advocate --------- 03 12.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 10.04.2007 by which learned Munsif II, Bhagalpur rejected their application under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) filed in Eviction Suit no. 2 of 1988 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners in the year 1988 for eviction of the defendants-opposite parties on the grounds of alleged default in payment of rent by the defendants and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit the defendants appeared and contested but learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to state as to whether - 2 - issues have been framed in the suit. 4. However, application dated 05.12.1994 was filed by the plaintiff under section 15 of the Act for payment of arrears of rent as well as current rent. The said application remained pending for 13 years whereafter it was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 10.04.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioners very vehemently challenges the said order but from perusal of the same, it appears that the learned court below, after considering the entire matter, has come to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant has been seriously denied by the defendants and they themselves claimed to be owner of the suit property and there is no material to prove prima facie any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the said circumstance, the learned court below has rightly rejected the said application of the plaintiffs-petitioners. 6. However, the aforesaid finding is only a prima facie and interlocutory finding which can not affect final result of the suit which has to be decided on the basis of evidence of the parties which are still to be led apart from the pleadings of the parties which are already on record. 7. In the said circumstances, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to consider the main question involved in the suit, namely, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties , payment of rent as well as other points - 3 - raised by the plaintiffs and the defendants at the time of final hearing of the suit, proceeding of which must be concluded within one year without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties as the said suit is already 21 years old. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)