Judgment 1. Heard 2. The defendant in the eviction suit is the petitioner before this court impugning the order of the trial court purported to be under section 15 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "B.B.C. Act) on an application by the plaintiff-respondent herein. 3. The plaintiff has chosen to appear in person. 4. Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate and the plaintiff in person at length. 5. The order impugned directs the defendant-petitioner to pay arrear of rent and current rent at the rate as determined by the House Controller under the provisions of B.B.C. Act. I am afraid on the face of it, the impugned order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. When the eviction suit was filed,in the plaint itself the plaintiff had admitted that the last paid rent was Rs. 210/-. While the suit was pending, the House Controller passed an order fixing a fair rent and therefore undisputedly the order of the House Controller came after the institution of the suit and as such it could not be the last paid rent. Further the plaintiff in the suit claims to be the landlord of the premises. This is disputed by the defendant not only on flimsy ground but on the simple ground that the defendant-petitioner admits tenancy under Smt. Deorani Devi (since deceased). The plaintiff-respondent claims title to the property in question on the basis of a Will purported to have been executed by late Smt. Deorani Devi in which he (being the nephew) has been given the property. The plaintiff filed a probate case before the District Judge, Darbhanga, which is pending. In the said probate case the natural heirs of Smt. Deorani Debi have appeared and contested the Will. As such it is obvious that the right, title and interest of the plaintiff-opposite party is under cloud. In the said probate proceeding the plaintiff-opposite party had filed an application to be appointed as receiver of several properties including the property in dispute as also application for direction for deposit of rent in respect of tenancy under those properties. The learned District Judge while accepting the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party in respect of two of the premises, did not grant any relief in respect of the premises in question. The learned District Judge while accepting the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party in respect of two of the premises, did not grant any relief in respect of the premises in question. Thus, it would be seen that the plaintiff-opposite party had made specific prayer for deposit of rent in a duly constituted proceeding which was not acceded to. He subsequently filed an eviction suit for breach of tenancy and personal necessity. Having filed the said suit he then moved the House Controller for fixation of fair rent and obtained an order enhancing the rent. Being armed by that order, he then approached the trial court in the eviction proceeding with an application under section 15 of B.B.C. Act. The learned trial court by the impugned order has allowed his prayer and directed payment of rent as fixed by the Rent Controller. Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act entitles a landlord to arrear of rent and continue payment of rent last paid. Admittedly as per the plaint itself the last paid rent was Rs. 210/- and not as determined subsequently by the House Controller. This apart, the very title of the plaintiff-opposite party is in serious dispute. In my opinion, the learned trial court erred in passing the order for depositing arrears of rent and current rent as directed by the House Controller. Accordingly, the said order is set aside with a direction that within a period of two months from today the defendant petitioner would deposit arrears of rent and rent upto date at the rate of Rs. 210/- per month with the trial court which the plaintiff will withdraw depending upon the success of the case. 6. The application is, therefore, allowed. There will be no order as to costs.