IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1237 of 2008 MAYA DEVI Versus MD. SAGIR & ANR ----------- 2 01.10.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed under Section 15 of the B.B.C Act does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The issue as to whether the suit property belongs to the petitioner by way of his defence can definitely be gone into within a limited parameters of the eviction suit but till the petitioner gets his own decree in the suit filed, claiming specific performance of contract (vide Title Suit No. 14 of 2005) he cannot claim to be landlord in his own right. That being so, the Court below has committed no jurisdictional error in directing the petitioner to pay the admitted rent of Rs. 350/- per month. The apprehension of the petitioner that certain observations made in the impugned order will bind or prejudice him at the time of final disposal of the suit is absolutely misconceived inasmuch as it is well settled law that any observation made in the interim order is confined for the purpose of disposal of that interlocutory application and cannot be based for deciding the suit. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Civil Revision application dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) - 2 -