Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff-opposite party filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 13 of 1993, for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises, fully described in the schedule to the plaint under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. After obtaining leave under Sec. 14(4) of the Act, the defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. 3. The defendant along with his wife claimed his ownership over the suit premises. By a registered sale deed dated 13.12.1989 (Ext. J/1) Prabhawati Devi, his wife purchased it from Haredhan Dey, Pinku Kumar Sharma and Chintu Kumar Sharma, both minor sons of Jogendra Prasad Sharma through their father-guardian. The defendant challenged the plaintiffs title and denied relationship of landlord and tenant. He further claimed to have constructed the house in question and was living therein in his own right. 4. On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the land over which the house is situated, by registered sale deed dated 11.12.1991 (Ext. 4). 5. Inspite of the fact that the defendant raised question of title of the premises in question, the plaintiff did not choose to convert the suit filed under Sec. 14 of the Act into a title suit and pay advalorem Court fee on market value of the property. 6. Though the suit proceeded as a pure suit for eviction under Sec. 14 of the Act, but the trial Court among the issues framed therein also framed issue No. 3 Whether the plaintiff is the owner-landlord of the suit premises?" and issue No. 5 "Whether the defendant is in occupation of the suit premises on account of monthly tenancy on monthly rental of Rs. 500.00 under the plaintiff or the defendant is in occupation of the same under his absolute right, title and interest?" 7. Both parties adduced evidence oral and documentary. The plaintiff examine 31 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents relating to title of his vendor and mutation and construction of the house by him. The defendant also examined 13 witnesses and filed a number of documents, which were marked as Exts. to prove title and possession over the suit house. Both parties adduced evidence oral and documentary. The plaintiff examine 31 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents relating to title of his vendor and mutation and construction of the house by him. The defendant also examined 13 witnesses and filed a number of documents, which were marked as Exts. to prove title and possession over the suit house. The trial Court considered the entire evidence of the parties in paragraphs 8 to 10 (pages 13 to 19 of the certified copy) of the impugned Judgment and held as under: Since the plaintiffs title of the suit premises has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, hence occupation of the defendant of the same as tenant is also proved because the defendant has been occupaying the same as tenant with the consent of the plaintiff-landlord, as no written agreement either registered or unregistered is required under the Bihar Buildings Act for letting to a tenant. Moreover to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant on contractual payment of rent it is not necessary to show that the tenant acknowledged the landlord as landlord in writing.... Thus it is also held that the alleged title deed of the defendant. Ext. J/l is abinitio illegal, void and fake and forged one. 1. The aforesaid issues were thus answered in favour of the plaintiff. 8 I further find that in the suit under Sec. 14 issue No. 6 was framed as follows : "Whether the defendant is liable for eviction from the suit premises due to non payment of rent since January, 1993?" and was answered in paragraph 12 of the Judgment as under: Since the defendants claim of ownership and title over the suit property has been held and proved to be imaginary and bogus and it is also not his case that he is paying rent to the plaintiff since then hence it is also proved in law that actually the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent since January, 1993 and on this score only the defendant is liable for eviction from the suit premises. 9. The suit was held to be maintainable under the Act and the plaintiffs case of reasonable and bona fide need of the suit house was held to be genuine and bona fide and so on that score also the defendant was found liable for eviction. 10. 9. The suit was held to be maintainable under the Act and the plaintiffs case of reasonable and bona fide need of the suit house was held to be genuine and bona fide and so on that score also the defendant was found liable for eviction. 10. The suit was accordingly decreed by the impugned Judgment dated 18.12.1995 and the defendant was directed to vacate the suit house. 11. After hearing the parties at length and perusing the records. I find that in the present suit for eviction, filed under Sec. 14 of the Act. not only full fledged question of title has been investigated, the trial Court also considered the question of default in payment of rent, within the meaning of Section 11(1)(d) of the Act and passed eviction decree also on the ground of default in payment of rent. The aforesaid two matters, in my opinion, was not permissive to be gone into and decided in a suit under Sec. 14 of he Act. 12. In the present suit, even if the defendant challenged the plaintiffs title and asserted his title over the suit house, the plaintiff did not choose to convert the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on payment of Court fee on the market value thereof and the suit proceeded and was decided under Sec. 14 of the Act, with the aforesaid findings, which in my opinion was not permissible. In this regard a refer once may be made to a decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar Verma and Ors. V/s. Ram Swarup Singh 1991 (2) BLJR 541, wherein it was held that in a suit under Sec. 14 of the Act the trial Court ought not to have decided the complicated question of title of the parties. 13. I further find that from the pleadings, evidence and documents, it is clear that a direct decision on the question of title of the parties is necessary to be given in the present case. 14. In Sheo Shankar Prasad and Ors. V/s. Barhan Misiry and Ors. 1985 PLJR 358. it was held that when in an eviction suit the full fledged question of title has been investigated, it should be tried as a regular suit and the plaintiff should pay ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the suit property. 14. In Sheo Shankar Prasad and Ors. V/s. Barhan Misiry and Ors. 1985 PLJR 358. it was held that when in an eviction suit the full fledged question of title has been investigated, it should be tried as a regular suit and the plaintiff should pay ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the suit property. The suit was remanded to consider the proper suit valuation and if it was beyond the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint was to be returned for presentation to proper Court. 15. In the aforesaid premises of facts, I set aside the impugned Judgment as well as the eviction decree. The plaintiff-opposite party agrees to amend the plaint suitably, in order to have declaration of title and recovery of possession on payment of required Court fee in accordance with law. If necessary, the defendants may also be given opportunity to file additional written statement, if any. The parties may adduce further evidence, if so required. 16. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the trail Court to decide the suit afresh. 17. In the result, this Revision application is allowed with the aforesaid directions. However, there will be no order as to costs.