IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.362 of 2008 1.Bijay Narayan Sonawala, son of late Ram Lakhan Prasad 2.Smt. Ranjana Sonawala, wife of Bijay Narayan Sonawala, both resident of Mohalla Ramna, Club Road, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, Dist. Muzaffarpur ----- Plaintiffs --- Petitioners. Versus 1. Mostt. Shanti Bajpayee, wife of late Gopal Kirshna Bajpayee. 2.Viajay Kumar Bajpayee 3. Krishna Kumar Bajpayee 4. Rajendra Kumar Bajpayee 5. Shashi Mishra 6. Kumod Awashthi, all sons of late Gopal Krishna Bajpayee, all resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar, Muzaffapur, P.O. Muzaffarpur, P.S. Mizaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur ---Defendants ---Opposite Parties. ---------------- 4. 3.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiffs of Eviction suit No. 19 of 2003 (Bijay Narain Sonawala & Ors. Vrs. Mostt. Shanti Bajpayee & Ors.), and is directed against the order dated 4.6.2007, whereby the learned Munsif, East Muzaffarpur, has rejected the application of the plaintiffs under section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1982(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for deposit of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses I.A. No.1472 of 2008, filed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing 2 this civil revision application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the revision application is condoned. I.A. No. 1472 of 2008 is accordingly disposed of. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. During pendencny of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under section 15 of the Act for a direction to the tenant to deposit the current rent at the rate last paid. While rejecting the application, the learned Munsif has held that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish prima facie case that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. We agree with the aforesaid observation. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, civil revision application is rejected. It goes without saying that the observations in this order are made for the limited purpose for disposal of the application under section 15 of the Act. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. )