JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Kuar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2. 2. Defect No.2, as pointed out by the Office, is ignored. 3. The Defendant-Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2007, passed by the Munsif, East, Muzaffarpur in Eviction Case No. 38 of 2005, whereby the prayer of the plaintiff made under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for payment of arrears of rent as well as current rent has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and on account of some oral agreement, whereby the Defendant-Opposite Party 2nd set, Opposite Party No.3 herein, has promised him to sell the property wherefrom the petitioner is sought to be evicted and, for that purpose, has given certain amount also. Learned counsel further submits that for specific performance of contract, the petitioner has filed a case in Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 submits that the Defendant-Petitioner has admitted in his written statement that he was living as a tenant since 1990 and was depositing rent of Rs. 700/- per month. Further submission is that the Plaintiffs have got the disputed property after partition in the family and thereafter it was agreed between the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties 1st set and the Defendant-Petitioner that he will vacate the premises and till vacating it, he will deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month. 5. The trial court after considering the rival submissions has held that since the Defendant himself has admitted that he was inducted as tenant at the rent of Rs. 700/- per month there, prima facie, exists the relationship of landlord and tenant and thus has ordered for payment of arrears of rent as well as current rent at the rate of Rs. 700/ per month, which was the amount admitted by the Defendant in his written statement as last paid rent. 6. I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order and, as such, the Civil Revision is dismissed.