1. This appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, is directed against an order of remand of the suit.

2. The relevant facts are short.

3. The suit in question was filed for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) of the respondent on allegations that he was inducted as tenant but he stopped payment of rent from April, 1983 and despite repeated demands, illegally refused to pay and thus he was habitual defaulter within the meaning of the Act and that the appellant himself requires the suit premises for running his shop as he has no other residential or commercial accommodation at Begusarai, besides his son is also unemployed.

4. The respondent filed a written statement praying to dismiss the suit asserting to the effect, inter alia, therein that unless the plaintiff values the suit properties at its market value, which is more than a lac of rupees; the suit cannot proceed; that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; that the suit also cannot proceed without payment of proper Court-fee; that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the holding in question never belong to the plaintiff or his family rather the defendant had acquired an indefeasible title by coming in uninterrupted possession since more than several 12 years.

5. The Court below framed following five issues, after recast

(i) Whether the defendant tenant has got title on over the rent claimed house as averred in his W.S.?

(ii) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?

(iii) Whether the suit as framed maintainable?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action or right to sue?

(v) Is the suit barred under the provisions of waiver, estoppel, acquiesce and limitation?

6. By the Judgment and decree dated 6-7-1985, the suit was decreed and the defendant was held liable for eviction after recording findings in favour of the appellant.

7. Against the judgment and decree aforementioned the respondent went up in appeal which by the impugned order was remitted back to the trial Court directing taking further evidence and hear the parties on the question of valuation of the suit property and also to return the plaint if it is found that the valuation is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. The appellate Court also directed the trial Court to obtain ad valorem Court-fee from the plaintiff and then to decide the suit on its merit. In doing so the Court of appeal relied upon a decision of this Court in Sheo Shankar Prasad V/s. Barhan Mistry, 1985 Pat LJR 358, after holding that from the pleadings, evidence and documents it is clear that a direct decision on the question of title of the parties is necessary to be decided and that Jamabandi in regard to the land in question has been directed to be created just before the filing of the suit in favour of the defendant.

8. Mrs. Sheema All Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that from the plaint and the issue framed by the trial Court it is clear that the plaintiff never wanted adjudication of his title rather he wanted eviction under the provisions of the Act and accordingly the Court below has erred in law in remitting back the case to the trial Court completely misconceiving the legal position.

9. Mr. Surya Bhushan Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand contends that the course adopted by the lower appellate Court being based on Sheo Shankar Prasads case supra was correct and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. He also places reliance on, AIR 1982 SC 1213, 1985 BBCJ (HC) 696: (AIR 1986 Patna 78) and 1989 Pat LJR (HC) 381.

10. In order to appreciate rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to look into the plaint as it is a settled law that the jurisdiction of the Court depends on the substance of the cause of action (bundle of facts) stated in the plaint (see Vasudev Gopalkrishna Tambwekar V/s. Boar