SMT. ASHA DEVI, W/O SURESH PRASAD, CLOTH SHOP IN FRONT OF MUKTI RAM BANKA SHOP NAYA BAZAR, PACHNA ROAD, P.O & P.S Vs. SHYAM SUNDER TIBREWAL S/O LATE BIHARI TIBREWAL RESIDENT OF NAYA BAZAR, P.O, P.S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (CAV) - This Civil Revision application under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2010 passed by learned Munsif, Lakhisarai in Title Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2006, whereby the learned court below while decreeing the suit has directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within two months, failing which the same would be vacated through the process of the court. I.A. No. 3041 of 2012

(2.) This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision application. It is stated that as in the opinion of the petitioner the learned trial court had followed the procedure as applicable to a general suit and not the special procedure provided under Sec. 14 of the Act, hence the petitioner on legal advise filed a Title Eviction Appeal No. 1 of 2011 under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code ") and the learned appellate court by order dated 12.7.2011 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The petitioner again under the advise of his counsel preferred a Civil Revision against the order passed in appeal giving rise to C.R. No. 141 of 2011 and which again was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2012 on grounds of maintainability. It is stated that this Court while dismissing the Civil Revision application had given liberty to the petitioner to either prefer a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the appellate court or file Revision under Sec. 14(8) of the Act against the judgment and order passed in the Eviction Suit. It is stated that following the liberty granted by this Court in the Civil Revision aforementioned that the petitioner chose to file the present Civil Revision and which has occasioned in delay in filing the present Civil Revision application. It is stated that as the petitioner was diligently contesting the matter hence the delay which has resulted in filing the present application may be condoned.

(3.) The prayer has been contested by Mr. Najmul Hoda, learned counsel appearing for the decree holder-opposite parties who has stated that merely because the petitioner claims pursuing other remedies, cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. It is further stated that the Act in question being a special Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply and thus the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act should be rejected.