SARSWATI DEVI Vs. KUNTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30th November, 1988 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Munsif, Begusarai, in Eviction' Suit No. 10 of 1985 and 93 of 1988 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirementt of the suit premises for their own occupation.

(2.) At the time of hearing, a Full Bench decision of this Court in Md. Jainul Ansari and others v. Md, Khalil reported in 1990 (2) BLJ 601 (Fa) Overruling a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Shri Udai Banerjee v. Shri P. R. Dutta, 1986 PLJR 950Was brought to our notice. It has been held by the Full Bench in C. R 45/88 (R) (supra) that when a suit for eviction is dismissed, the the remedy available to a plaintiff landlord is to file an appeal and not a revision petition before the High Court. Learned Counsel for the defendant opponents, however, contended that the Full Bench decision requires reconsideration in view of the fact that the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) have not been noticed. Learned Counsel contends that as the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes is made applicable to the hearing of a suit under section 14 of the Act, by virtue of sub-ssction (7) thereof the remedy of an appeal is barred because no appeal lies from a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the contention that the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 14 of the Act bar an ap eal from a decree dismissing a suit for eviction cannot be upheld. That provision, in our opinion, has no bearing oa the question as to whether an appeal or a revision lies from a decree passed in a suit under Section 14 of the Act. That provision merely lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law, the Court while hearing a suit under this section shall follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence. That provision does not deal with the remedy available to a party which may be aggrieved by the decree passed by the court trying a suit under Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Act deals with the question of appeal and revision. The Full Bench, after considering the provisions of sub-section (8), has held that provision does not bar an appeal from a decree dismissing a plaintiff's suit for eviction. We see no cogent reason to take a view different from that taken by the Full Bench in C R 45 of 1988 (R) (supra).