SUSHILA DEVI Vs. LAKHAN LAI SAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation before this Court at the instance of the tenant -petitioners.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/opposite parties filed 0a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity (for opening a Kirana shop) in the suit premises which is a shop katra with one room and kitchen measuring about 32 ' north to south and about 16 ' east to west facing north of Bari Path situated at Moh: Machhua Toli, PS.Kadam Kuan town, bearing part of Holding No. 13210 C. 109, Circle No.29, Ward No. 17/12. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 23rd June 2001 by the trial Court. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the tenant/petitioners by filing civil revision application being C.R. 1435 of 2001 under proviso to Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said civil revision application was allowed in part on 14.2.2003 [Reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 345]. This Court upheld the finding of the trial court with regard to reasonable and bonafide need of the plaintiffs opposite parties for eviction but remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the question of partial eviction in terms of proviso to Section 11(1) (c) of the Act as the trial Court had not considered the said question in accordance with law.

(3.) THE Revision application has been filed under proviso to Section 14(8) of the Act which empowers this Court to satisfy itself whether the order passed by the Court is according to law or not. The power conferred to this Court under the aforesaid provision is wider than the revisional power conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, but the same cannot be equated with the appellate power. To satisfy as to whether the order is according to law or not, the Court will interfere with the finding of the trial Court only, if the finding is perverse, unreasonable or is contrary to law in the sense that while deciding the matter, the Court has either overlooked the material evidence or has relied upon inadmissible evidence affecting the merits of the case or has not addressed itself to the legal principles governing grant of eviction/partial eviction.