AKHTAR KHAN Vs. SALAMUL BAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the tenant-defendants, an interesting question arises for consideration of this Court, namely, as to whether the court of appeal below has committed any error of jurisdiction in applying the provisions of Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1983 (Bihar Act IV of 1983) by refusing to admit their appeal in regard to their eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord opposite party.

(2.) The title suit in question was instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Biharsharif, on the 21st December, 1982, for eviction of the petitioners, on various grounds, including the ground of personal necessity, from the premises in question. After services of summonses and registered covers, the petitioners appeared in the suit on the 24th January, 1983, with an affidavit. The order of the trial court, recorded on the 24th January, 1983, reads as follows-- ..(Verunacular Matter Omitted).. From a perusal of the order sheet of the lower court it does not appear as to what was the ex parte order, which was pass-ed against the defendants, which they wanted to be recalled and that was ultimately allowed to be recalled on payment of costs. Be that as it may, the trial court recalled the order and also granted time till the 1st February, 1983, for filing written statement and settlement of issues. On that date, i.e., the 1st February, 1983, the written statement was filed and accepted. The hearing of the suit commenced on the 9th February, 1983, and it was concluded on the 24th February, 1983, followed by the judgment on the 26th February, 1983, against the petitioners.

(3.) Against the above judgment, the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge of Nalanda, and, in the admission matter, a question arose as to whether any appeal lay against that part of the judgment which related to the personal necessity of the plaintiff, in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Act and the learned District Judge held that in view of the special provision, no appeal lay to that extent.