SHAILENDRAKUMARSINGH Vs. KAMLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The defendant-tenant has moved this Court of the by filing the present revision application under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (tease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (Bihar Act IV of 1983) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order of eviction passed in a suit tor eviction in which the sole ground for eviction was bona fide personal necessity, which was denied by the defendant.

(2.) When the revision application was placed for admission, a learned single Judge of this Court admitted the same and directed the matter to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench as he was made to understand that the point raised in this case, whether remedy of the tenant was to prefer an appeal or to file revision application under proviso to Section 14 (8) of the Act, was net concluded by any judgment of this Court, It appears to me that the point is concluded by decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Khan v. Salamul Hague (1984 P.L.J.R, 64) wherein it was laid down that if in a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity special procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Act has not been followed and order for eviction has been passed, the only remedy of the defendant-tenant was prefer an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and no revision under proviso to Section 14 (8) of the Act was maintainable. In this application, we have been called upon to consider the correctness of the law laid down in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Khan (supra).

(3.) In the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as '1947 Act') and the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as '1977 Act'), there was no provision similar to Section 14 of the Act which has been introduced for the first time in the Act in the year 1982. There is a general impression that suit fcr eviction upon grounds enumerated under Section 11 ((1) of 1947 Act and Section 12 of 1977 Act is filed under the provisions of Buildings Control Act. I do not find any such provision in these enactments to show that suit for eviction is filed thereunder. It is well settled that all eviction suits are filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and by virtue of the provision of Section 11 of the Act, a protection has been provided to a tenant against unreasonable eviction unless a decree is passed by a court on any of the grounds enumerated therein in relation to cases which are governed by the provision of the Act. Section 14 of the Act prescribes special procedure for disposal of eviction suits where the grounds taken for eviction are either bona fide personal necessity or expiry of the period of tenancy or both. Section 13 of the Act lays down that provision of Section 14 shall have over-riding effect. For better appreciation, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act which read thus: