M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 7.12.2002 passed by Sub-Judge, IV, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 1/2001 whereby he has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short the said Act) and directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from June, 1998 as also the current rent on or before the 15th day of the continuing month.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiffs/opposite parties who are the sons of Hazi Sahadul Mian, filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises and also for recovery of arrears of rent. Plaintiffs case is that they are the owners of the suit premises and the defendant is the monthly tenant under them on monthly rent of Rs. 175/- per month. It is alleged that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent from March, 1998 and as such, became liable for eviction.

3. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. Defendants case is that the suit premises was constructed by his father-in-law, Md. Yasin who Is the brother of the plaintiffs and he has been residing with his father in-law in the suit premises with his family members. It is alleged that the defendant was never inducted by the plaintiffs as tenant in the suit premises nor he has ever paid rent to them. As a matter of fact, the suit premises was allotted in the share of the father In-law of the defendant who has been residing there with His daughter.

4. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 15 of the said Act for direction to the defendant to deposit arrears of rent as also the current rent. In support of his claim the plaintiffs filed counter foil rent receipt book showing payment of rent by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

5. The court below, on the basis of the counter foil rent receipt book, prima facie held that there is non-payment of rent from May, 1998 and, accordingly, the impugned order was passed. The relevant portion of the order reads as under-

"On perusal of the record I find that the plaintiff has filed rent receipts from 5.4,95 to 5.5.98 which shows that the defendant, Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad is paying @ Rs. 175/- to the plaintiff but after 15.5.98 there is no payment receipt, In plaint the plaintiff has claimed recovery of arrear rent from March, 1998 to till today but rent receipt shows that rent has already been paid up to May, 1998. At this stage it is prima facie established by the plaintiff that the defendant is his tenant. So, the defendant has to pay monthly rent and arrear rent to the plaintiff. The petition under Section 15, BBC Act filed by the plaintiff is allowed and defendant is directed to pay arrear rent from June, 1998 to up till now within the next date and defendant is also directed to pay the current rent on and before 15 (fifteen) days of continuing month. Put up on 27.11.2002 for settlement of issues (Dictated)"

6. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the court below before passing the impugned order, has not prima facie determined the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the counter foil rent receipt book which does not bear the signature of the defendant-petitioner, has erroneously come to a finding that the defendant is a tenant.

7. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for plaintiffs/opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that when the defendant appeared and contested the suit for eviction by filing written statement, the court is empowered to entertain the ap- plication and pass order under Section 15 of the said Act. Learned counsel submitted that if t