Judgment S.B. Sanyal, J. Plaintiff petitioner has come up before this court against au order dated 1.10.1982 passed by Sri L.K. Sahay, Second Sub Judge, Chapra in Title Suit No. 63 of 1980 by which the suit has been ordered to have abated under section 4 (C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is a simple suit for eviction of tenant and for arrears of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that it is true that the declaration of title has also been sought for with respect to the house in question but this in no way affects his submission, In support of his contention, the learned counsel draws my attention to the decision in Basgit Dasadh, V Harakh Dasaundhi and others where it has been laid down that a suit for eviction is not hit by the provisions of section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act, '). He has also drawn my attention to the case reported in Bibi Magboolan and others V. Sk. Hanif and others where it has been laid down that for the applicability of the Act, the house in question must be connected with the agricultural operation. According to the learned counsel the observation of the learned court below that the petitioner might also be looking after his agricultural land from his residential house is not akin to the house being connected with the agricultural operation. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants opposite party on the other hand, submits that it cannot be paid that this suit is only in relation to the house. The house comprises of two rooms only and there must be some open land, inasmuch as the land is about one Katha. According to the learned counsel, therefore the learned court below should have recorded a finding whether the house in question occupies the entire land or not. According to the learned counsel, if there is any vacant land, the suit will be hit by the provisions of the Act, as there has also been a prayer for declaration of the title. 4. According to the learned counsel, if there is any vacant land, the suit will be hit by the provisions of the Act, as there has also been a prayer for declaration of the title. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I think the order impugned is wholly illegal and must be set aside. The Act, applies predominantly to land and not to a house simpliciter. Nor the Act, affects a suit for eviction of a tenant or for recovery of arrears of rent. The finding that there is little land outside the house which is used as compound is wholly irrelevant and that will not make it a suit with respect to homestead land. It would be deemed to be cartilage. Further the observation of the learned court below that since the petitioner has some agricultural land he must be looking after the agricultural land from his residential house will not make the house as being used for agricultural operation. It is well known what kind of house is connected with the agricultural operation i.e. such house which is exclusively used for agricultural operation. The emphasis, in my opinion is the predominant use of the property. 5. I am, therefore, of the view that this petition should succeed and the impugned order should be set aside and the suit should proceed in accordance with law 6. In the result, the application succeeds and the order dated 1.10.1982 is set aside but there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.