Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party. 2. This civil revision application is directed against order dated 21.11.96 passed by Munsif, 3rd, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 57 of 1995 in purporting exercise of power under Sec. 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act by directing the defendant/petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent and also current rent. 3. The plaintiff/opposite party filed the aforementioned eviction suit for eviction of the defendant/petitioners from the suit property alleging that he is the owner of the house having been acquired by way of gift from his father and the defendant is a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 150.00 per month It is further alleged that the defendant failed to pay rent from January, 1995 and thereby made himself liable for eviction. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying and disputed the relationship of land-lord and tenant and also payment of rent. The case of the defendant/petitioner is that he being the full brother of the plaintiff he has been residing in the house belonging to his father and the property is joint family property. It is also denied that the defendant ever paid rent to the plaintiff opposite party. After filing of the written statement the plaintiff opposite party filed an application under Sec. 15 of the aforesaid Act praying for a direction to the petitioners to deposit arrears of rent as also current rent. The said application was opposed by the defendant/petitioner by filing rejoinder. However, the learned Court below, by the impugned order allowed the application and directed the petitioner to deposit rent. 4. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Court below. Although the Court below has taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties but serious error of law has been committed in deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Court below took the view that since the defendant failed to produce any document in support of the fact that he is the owner, therefore, the submission of the plaintiff will be accepted that the defendant is a tenant. Instead of coming to a prima facie finding with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant the Court below on assumption held that the relationship exits. Instead of coming to a prima facie finding with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant the Court below on assumption held that the relationship exits. As noticed above, the defendant who is admittedly full brother of the plaintiff and disputed property was at one point of time joint family property, it cannot be assumed that the defendant is occupying the suit property as tenant unless otherwise specifically proved on the basis of allegiance which can be done only at the stage of final hearing of the suit 5. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not applied its mind in passing the order under Sec. 15 of the Act and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs.