Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the opposite parties inspite of the fact that notice has been validly served upon the opposite parties and they had appeared through learned Counsel in the case. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 9.8.2005 by which the learned Munsif-I, Munger, disposed of the petition filed by the defendants-opposite parties holding that the plaintiffs prayer for defendants eviction was not maintainable and adjourned the suit for hearing only for relief of recovery of arrears of rent in Title Suit No. 93 of 1979. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction of the defendants from a portion of the ground floor of his house on the ground of default in payment of rent and also for recovery of arrears of rent which had fallen due. In the said suit the defendants appeared and admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and they contested the suit on other grounds. After completion of the pleadings issues were framed and evidence on behalf of the plaintiff started. In the meantime, defendants filed a petition in the learned court below stating that the plaintiff had admitted in his cross-examination that suit premises had been sold to others and hence he did not remain the landlord and he had no right to claim any the decree of eviction. The said petition of the defendants has been allowed by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 9.8.2005. 4. It has been stated on affidavit by the plaintiff-petitioner that no sale deed had been executed m registered by the plaintiff-petitioner in favour of any one with respect to the suit property. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-petitioner had only executed an unregistered agreement for sale in favour of one Nasira Ali. From order dated 10.1.2003 (Annexure-1) it is quite apparent that the said Nasira Ali filed an intervention petition for being added as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit but the learned court below itself found that neither there was any sale deed nor even the agreement for sale was a registered document and hence, her claim cannot be entertained and accordingly her intervention petition was rejected by the learned court below. 5. 5. There is no denial of the aforesaid state of facts and hence when no registered sale deed or document with respect to the transfer of the suit was filed, it cannot be legally assumed that the plaintiff has lost any right, title or interest in the suit property. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff-petitioner is fully entitled to continue with the suit not only with respect to recovery of arrears of rent but also with respect to recovery of possession from the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent if he is able to prove the said default. 6. In the light of the aforesaid observation, the impugned order of the learned court below clearly suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error and is accordingly set aside. This Civil Revision application is thus allowed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the hearing and disposal of the suit preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order as the suit for eviction is pending since 1979.