ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.2.2008 passed by the Sub Judge-I. Pakur in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 21 of 2003 allowing the prayer of the plaintiffs-respondents under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short "B.B.C. Act") and directing the defendants-petitioner to deposit arrears and current rent. 2. Mr. J.P. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the finding recorded in the said order that their exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties will seriously prejudice the petitioner as his case is that the B.B.C. Act is not applicable in this case, as only a parti land was given on rent to his father over which building was constructed by his father. He further submitted that petitioner had instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 41 of 2001 for declaring the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents as void and illegal. In these circumstances, petitioner could not be directed by the Court below to deposit the arrears/current rent. 3. From the copy of plaint and written statement supplied by Mr. Jha, it appears that apart from the petitioner, his brother Prabhat Lal Patel is another defendant and written statement was filed by them but it is not known why Prabhat Lal Patel has not been arrayed as one of the petitioners in this writ petition. However, they will be referred as the "petitioners" in this order. 4. It appears that petitioners admitted in the written statement that the vendors of the respondents were their landlords and they inherited the tenancy from their father. It further appears that petitioners themselves filed a case being H.R.C. Case No. 4 of 1996-97 in the Court of House Rent Controller under the B.B.C. Act. in which apart from tenancy, it was also admitted that the monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs. 200/- from 1965 and that the rent was not paid since December, 1995. It further appears that petitioners themselves filed a case being H.R.C. Case No. 4 of 1996-97 in the Court of House Rent Controller under the B.B.C. Act. in which apart from tenancy, it was also admitted that the monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs. 200/- from 1965 and that the rent was not paid since December, 1995. It further appears that a suit was filed by the petitioners for declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents is void and illegal on the ground that the suit property was orally agreed to be sold to them, but inspite of receiving advance, the sale deed was not executed in their favour. 5. After considering the entire matter as aforesaid, the learned Court below held that prima facie there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; and, therefore, the petitioners were directed to deposit the arrear/current rent. The submission of Mr. Jha that such finding will prejudice the petitioners-defendants is wholly misconceived. Such finding is a prima facie finding for the purpose of Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act which does not prejudice the parties in the final decision of the suit. The judgment reported in Braj Kishore Sah and Ors. v. Commissioner of Bhagalpur and Anr. 1979 BLJR 139 is also of no help. In the said case, which arose out of a proceeding for fixation of fair rent, it was the undisputed position that the premises in question was not a building within the meaning of the B.B.C. Act and, in that situation, it was held that the provision of the B.B.C. Act has no application and could not govern the relationship of landlord and tenant within the meaning of the Act, whereas in the present suit there is a dispute between the parties on that aspect. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances noticed above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs. Petition dismissed.