Judgment G.N.Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in an eviction suit. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court rejecting his application under Sec.11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. The ground upon which this relief has been refused to the petitioner is that there is dispute between the parties with regard to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and that question will have to be decided in the suit itself. According to the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant should be left to be decided finally at the trial of the suit, otherwise it would amount to prejudicing the suit itself. 2. The ground given by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge for declining to deal with the application under Sec.11-A on merits is not well-founded at all. There are numerous decisions of this Court wherein it has been laid down that a decision on the question of the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant in a proceeding under Sec.11-A is a tentative decision for the limited purpose of disposing of the application under Sec.11-A. It is not a final decision in the suit itself, and that notwithstanding a tentative decision in a proceeding under Sec.11-A, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to conic to a final decision on the same question in the suit itself. I may refer in this connection to the observations of Untwalia, J., in Civil Revn. No. 710 of 1961 (Pat), (Azizul Rah-man V/s. Abdul Aziz) given on the 28-11-1961, where his Lordship said that in a summary proceeding under Sec.11-A, it is necessary to record a positive finding, although that finding may be a finding only for the purposes of Sec.11-A, of the Act. I referred to this decision of Untwalia, J., in Parbati Kueri V/s. Sugan Chand Jain, ( AIR 1967 Pat 415 ), where I took the view that for the purpose of passing an order under Sec.11-A, it is incumbent upon the Court to make a summary investigation as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. even though the same question arises for decision in the suit itself. even though the same question arises for decision in the suit itself. The view that I there expressed was approved by Tarkeshwar Nath, J., in Mahabir Ram V/s. Shiva Shankar Prasad, 1968 BUR 447 = ( AIR 1968 Pat 415 (FB)), where speaking for the Full Bench his Lordship made the following observation: "In most of the suits of such a nature, the defendant takes up the plea that he was not a tenant of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had no title to the building in question. If the contention of Mr. J. C. Sinha were to be accepted, then the mere denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant would make the provisions of Sec.11-A nugatory and the jurisdiction of the Court to pass an order under that section would be ousted. Such interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 11-A cannot be accepted, and, in my opinion, the correct procedure for a court to adopt would be that it should tentatively examine the materials available on the record and determine whether the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant or a dispute raised by him with regard to the title of the plaintiff was bona fide or a mere pretence and without any merit : if the court finds that the said denial is merely for the sake of denial and that there was no substance in that denial, the court should proceed to make an order for deposit of rent if the other conditions laid down in that section are fulfilled." It is manifest, therefore, that the hesitation which the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has felt in going into the question of relationship of landlord and tenant in dealing with the annlication under Sec.11-A is not well-founded and there has been a failure on his part in exercising the jurisdiction which is vested in him under the law. 3 Mr. Mazumdar appearing for the Opposite Party has, however, relied upon the aforesaid observation of Tarkeshwar Nath, J., in support of his contention that an order under Sec.11-A cannot properly be made unless it is shown that the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant is a mere pretence. In my judgment, this is not a true purport of the observation which his Lordship made in the Full Bench case. In my judgment, this is not a true purport of the observation which his Lordship made in the Full Bench case. His Lordship merely said that where the denial is a mere pretence, the Court should proceed to make an order upon the defendant under Sec.11-A, if the other conditions laid down in that section are fulfilled. This is far from saying that unless the Court finds that the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant is a mere pretence, it should make no order in terms of Sec.11-A, even if the other conditions laid down therein are fulfilled: 4. Since the trial Court has not recorded any finding as to whether the relationship between the parties is one of landlord and tenant or of mortgagor and mort- gagee, it is not desirable that I should express any opinion on this question. I would, however, like the Court below to keep in view the observation which I made in Parbati Kueris case, AIR 1967 Pat 415 with respect to the requisites of a mortgage by conditional sale as contained in the proviso to clause (c) of Sec. 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. To the same effect is the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bapuswami V/s. N. Pattey Gounder, AIR 1966 SC 902 . It is in the light of these decisions that the trial Court will have to decide the controversy with respect to the true relationship between the parties to this suit. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed. The order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge is set aside and the case is sent back to him for dealing with the application under Sec.11-A on merits according to law. There will, however, be no order as to costs, 6. Let the records of the trial Court be sent down at once.