Judgment Heard Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Shamim learned JC to G.A. on behalf of the State and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order as contained in annexure 2 to 4 has moved this court. The facts of the case, in short, are that respondent no. 4 filed a petition before the sub-divisional officer, Chas, respondent no. 3 alleging, inter alia that she was the owner of the Mahavir Mandir and a room adjacent to the Mandir. The said room was given to the petitioner subject to payment of Rs.100/-(Hundred) per month for maintenance of the Mandir and also with an undertaking that the petitioner would vacate the same as and when required by respondent no. 4. A grievance was made before respondent no. 3 that neither the petitioner was paying the amount of maintenance nor she was vacating the building and, on the other hand, the petitioner was running a printing press in the said premises in order to grab the property. On this allegation respondent no. 4 prayed that legal action be taken against the petitioner. 3. Respondent no. 3 on such petition being filed by respondent no. 4 registered M.R.C. Case no. 8/90 and issued notice to the petitioner. Parties were heard and on 28.1.91 respondent no. 3 in his order observed to the effect that issues involved are two fold, namely, deciding the title of the subject matter of the dispute and secondly fixed the fair rent eviction thereof. The involvement of T.P. mainly relates to the first issue which is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Hence the T.P. may seek remedy in a competent court. Regarding second issue upon hearing the parties may submit their documents." 4. Ultimately, on 27.2.91 respondent no. 3 while observing that he had no power to adjudicate the matter regarding right, title over the disputed premises, fixed rent at Rs.1000/- per month subject to the final decision regarding right, title by the competent court. 5. The petitioner, it appears, filed H.R.C. appeal no. 6/91 before the Collector, Dhanbad who by his order dated 14.6.93 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of respondent no. 3. 5. The petitioner, it appears, filed H.R.C. appeal no. 6/91 before the Collector, Dhanbad who by his order dated 14.6.93 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of respondent no. 3. The Collector also found disputed question of right and title regarding shabaitship but has affirmed the order of respondent no. 3 on the ground that mutation order was passed by the Circle Officer in favour of respondent no. 4 and as because no appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid mutation order and moreover, as the S.D.O. relied on a report submitted by the B.D.O. Baghmara supporting the case of respondent no. 4. 6. The petitioner moved the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Dhanbad in HRC revision no. 54/93 but without any result. The Commissioner dismissed the revision solely on the ground that as the petitioner did not deposit the arrears of house rent before filing of the revision application, as required under the House Control Act, the revision was not maintainable. 7. Mr. Debi Prasad appearing for the petitioner submits that from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is absolutely clear that not only respondent no. 3 but the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner erred in exercising their respective jurisdiction in this matter. He submits that respondent no. 3 could not have fixed the monthly rent on mere filing of the application by respondent no. 4 without even being prima facie, satisfied about the relationship of landlord and tenant. Similarly, the Collector has also acted without jurisdiction in affirming the order of the respondent no. 3 on the ground that no appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of mutation. The Commissioner it is urged, being a revisional authority, should not have dismissed the revision application on the ground of non-deposit of arrears of rent because the instant case is not covered any of the provisions of the Bihar Building (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act. 8. Mr. Rajendra Prasad appearing, for respondent no. 4, on the other hand, submits that respondent no. while exercising his power under the Rent Control Act, rightly fixed the fair rent of the premises in question. He further submits that on the basis of the inquiry held by the B.D.O. respondent no. 3 was justified in deciding the matter in favour of respondent no. 4. 9. Annexure 1 is petition filed by respondent no. while exercising his power under the Rent Control Act, rightly fixed the fair rent of the premises in question. He further submits that on the basis of the inquiry held by the B.D.O. respondent no. 3 was justified in deciding the matter in favour of respondent no. 4. 9. Annexure 1 is petition filed by respondent no. 4 before respondent no. 3. The case of respondent no. 4 is that she purchased the land in question by registered deed on 8.9.85. The petitioner was allowed to occupy, a room adjacent to the Mahabir Mandir on the assurance given by her that a sum of Rs.100/- would be given per month for the maintenance of the said Mandir. This averment of respondent no. 4 clearly indicates that the petitioner was not tenant under her. The petitioner only assured respondent no. 4 that a sum of Rs.100/- shall be given for maintenance of the Mandir. In the petition respondent no. 4 only alleged that the petitioner was trying to grab the land and, as such, some legal action may be taken against her. There is no prayer in the petition for fixation of fair rent. The order of respondent no. 3 dated 28.1.91 shows that he was convinced that there was a dispute regarding title of she bait ship of the Mandir. He also found that he had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title. By the impugned order dated 27.2.91 respondent no. 3 while declined to decide the question of right, title over the disputed premises fixed rent at Rs.1000/- per month. In my view this order of respondent no. 3 is illegal and void ab initio. It is well-settled that prima facie the court has to be satisfied about the relationship of landlord and tenant. There is no averment by respondent no. 4 that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent. Respondent no. 3 having found that proper adjudication i.e. regarding, right, title over the disputed premises has to be gone into by a competent court of Civil Jurisdiction i.e. Civil Court, should not have suo mota fixed the fair rent. 10. Similarly, the Collector erred in law in affirming the order of respondent no. 3 only on the ground that mutation order was passed in favour of respondent no. 4 and the B.D.O. Baghmara submitted report in favour of the petitioner. 10. Similarly, the Collector erred in law in affirming the order of respondent no. 3 only on the ground that mutation order was passed in favour of respondent no. 4 and the B.D.O. Baghmara submitted report in favour of the petitioner. The report of the B.D.O. could have been the basis for such decision provided a case of landlord and tenant could have been made out by the respondent no. 4. Here it is not so. 11. In the result this application is allowed. The impugned orders as contained in annexures 2, 3 and 4 are quashed. The parties, if so advised, may settle their dispute before appropriate forum in accordance with law. Application allowed.