1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is plaintiff of Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2002, which she has filed for eviction of defendant no. 1 from the suit premises on the ground of her personal necessity and also on the ground of default by the defendant in payment of rent with respect to the suit premises.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.2.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda has allowed the defendants petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) and converted the eviction suit into a title suit and directed the plaintiff to deposit the court fees as per the fresh valuation due to the said added relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since she had filed a suit for eviction simplicitor and she was dominus litus, there was no occasion for the learned court below to concert the eviction suit into a title suit and add the relief which the plaintiff had not claimed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the issue of title was very much involved in the suit as the defendants had denied any relationship of landlord and tenant and were claiming the suit premises on the basis of their independent right. He further relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Maheshwar Pd. Sharma V/s. Shobha Devi, reported in 1999(2) PLJR 148 in which it was held that although in an eviction suit the court is not required to decide the title of the plaintiff in a full fledged manner and the court is only to see whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and for that purpose whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises, but in case complicated question of title is involved, the court may allow the party to file a fresh suit for declaration of title etc. or may direct that the eviction suit be converted into a title suit for deciding the aforesaid complicated question of title.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party further contends that a plain reading of the plaint would show that the suit was vexatious and was filed on the basis of clear wrong facts and hence in such circumstances the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was clearly applicable as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam V/s T.V. Satyapal and another reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2421. Learned counsel for the opposite party further avers that even in paragraph-6 of this civil revision a wrong statement has been made that the defendant became tenant of the plaintiff from January, 1989 for establishing his independent office as a lawyer, but it would be clear from the certificate issued by the Bar Council that he became an advocate only in the year 1992. Hence, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court not only the suit was vexatious but the plaintiff-petitioner is liable for appropriate action for making wrong statement before this Court.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite clear that the statement made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this civil revision is repetition of the claim of the plaintiff made in the plaint, which has been denied and contested by the defendant in the written statement and hence it is for the learned court below to decide the matter after considering the evidence and after hearing the parties on all the issues involved.

7. From the record of the case, it is also clear that no complicated question of title is involved in the case and the learned court below has only to see whether any relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and for that purpose whether the plaintiff is the owner. In every eviction suit these matters have to be considered and there is no occasion in such circumstances t