Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties and I intend to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the learned Munsif, Bettiah in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif, Bettiah has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BBC Act’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial court and has filed Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2020 for decree of eviction against the defendant/respondent and had also prayed for handing over the possession of the suit property apart from payment of arrears of rent. The respondent is the tenant and an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent on 01.06.2019 and it was agreed that the defendant would pay monthly rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month apart from electricity bill. The respondent paid the rent to the plaintiff till 30.11.2019 and thereafter stopped the payment of rent since December, 2019. The respondent also violated the terms of agreement. After expiry of lease period on 01.04.2020, notice was given to the respondent to vacate the premises, but the respondent did not vacate the premises and thereafter eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that after notice, the defendant appeared before the learned trial court and filed his written statement denying the title of the plaintiff and relationship of landlord and tenant. The respondent claimed that an agreement to sale was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on 10.06.2019 and the consideration amount was Rs. 80,000,00/- (eighty lacs) out of which the respondent paid Rs. 65,00,000/- (sixty five lacs) on different dates. As the petitioner refused to execute the sale deed in faovur of the respondent, the respondent filed Title Suit No. 254 of 2022 for specific performance of contract. The defendant further claimed that as per deed of agreement there was no relation of tenant and landlord between the parties.

4. Learned counsel further submits that after completion of pleadings of the parties, petitioner filed a petition under Section 15 of the BBC Act for payment of rent claiming arrears of rent dues amounting to Rs. 87,000/- @ 3,000/- per month. In his rejoinder, the respondent stated that he was not liable to pay rent to the petitioner as respondent was tenant of petitioner till 04.06.2019 and thereafter the respondent was in possession in terms of the agreement of sale and has paid Rs. 65,00,000/- (sixty five lacs) to the petitioner and balance amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of saledeed. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court after hearing the parties rejected the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 15 of the BBC Act by a cryptic order. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by passing a non-speaking order. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that tenancy was admitted and if any agreement was made between the parties it would not confer title over the person who has got an agreement of sale in his favour. Unless the rights are decided by a competent court, no title will pass to the defendant as he has no right in property. Learned counsel further submits that the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and payment of rent is also admitted, though there is different version of petitioner and respondent about the period till the rent was paid. Further, the petitioner has no where admitted execution of agreement of sale in faovur of the respondent and as the respondent has taken up this defence, the option available to the resp