Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, defendant in Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2010, is aggrieved of order dated 10.08.2011 by which application under Section 15 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has been allowed and he has been directed to deposit rent for 36 months preceding institution of the eviction suit. from schedule "A" properties on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent. Description of the suit schedule property has been described by disclosing boundaries in schedule "A" appended to the plaint. The plaintiff has pleaded that his father was a licensee in respect of lands comprised under Jugsalai Municipal Holding No. 261/212, Ward No. 07, RO/P.S- Jugsalai, district-East Singhbhum. His father constructed several shop rooms over the said land and the defendant was inducted as a tenant in one shop on monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The plaintiff used to grant rent receipts on printed form on which plaintiff's name is printed and on the counter-foil of the rent receipts, the defendant used to sign. Pleading that the defendant was very irregular in payment of monthly rents and paid composite rents for June, 1991 to September 1991 and also for the period August 1990 to May 1991 and finally stopped payment of rent from October 1991, the suit for eviction of the defendant was instituted. In the written statement the defendant has pleaded that on 15.10.1993 Railways admitted him as a licensee for the suit land, however, description of the land for which license has allegedly been granted in favour of the defendant is neither disclosed in the license nor in the written statement. 3. Contending that the defendant has a valid right by virtue of license deed dated 15.10.1993, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that application under Section 15 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 was not maintainable. Moreover, relationship of landlord and tenant is not admitted by the defendant and while so, the impugned order dated 10.08.2011 is liable to be set-aside. It is contended that, once the plaintiff has admitted that the defendant somehow obtained allotment of the land upon which the suit shop has been constructed, he ceases to be the landlord and therefore the defendant is not liable to pay rent as directed by the trial Judge in its order dated 10.08.2011. 4. By an order dated 24.02.2012 this Court has stayed further proceedings in Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2010 and operation of the order dated 10.08.2011. 5. Section 2(f) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 defines landlord. The expression landlord includes person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of the building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let out to a tenant. Definition of landlord under Section 2(f) is apparently very wide. He was a tenant is admitted by the defendant. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant after sometime was irregular in payment of monthly rent and finally from October, 1991 he has stopped paying rent for the suit shop. Plea taken by the defendant is that in October, 1993 he has been granted license for the land in question. The default in payment of rent is admittedly prior to 15.10.1993, if at all the plea taken by the defendant is found true. This, of course, would be an issue for trial in the suit where the parties would lead evidence. On admitted facts, once it is found that the defendant was tenant during the period when he allegedly committed default in payment of rent, Section 15 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is attracted. 6. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.08.2011, the writ petition is dismissed, however, it is clarified that payment of rent by the defendant shall remain subject to adjustment on final decision in Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2010. 7. Interim order dated 24.02.2012 stands vacated. .;