ALAM AND ORS. Vs. MUNNI KHATOON AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal filed by the plaintiff of the Title Suit Nos. 66/83/53/84 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.1986 passed by the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Bettiah in T.A. No. 30/20 of 1984-85 reversing on merit the judgment and decree dated 4.8.1984 passed by the Munsif, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 66/83/53/84. The plaintiff brought the title suit for eviction of the defendant-respondent on the ground of personal necessity as envisaged under Section 11(i)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (Bihar Act 4 of 1983) stating therein that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff wherein the defendant was inducted as tenant. The suit property was now bona fidely required by the plaintiff and hence a decree of eviction be passed against the defendant. The defendant appeared and filed an application supported by affidavit seeking permission of the court to contest the suit. The trial court vide order dated 26.8.1983 permitted the defendant respondent to contest the suit. A time was granted for filing written statement which was filed on 14.9.1983 in which the defendant, inter alia, disputed the relationship of the landlord and tenant. The defendant also denied the plea of personal necessity as claimed by the plaintiff. The trial court permitted the parties to lead evidence and also framed issue(s). On a consideration of the evidence the trial court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property whereas as the defendant was the tenant. In other words, relationship of landlord and tenant was established. The claim of bona fide need of the suit property was also upheld. Accordingly the suit was decreed. Aggrieved thereby the defendant filed a regular appeal before the lower appellate court. The plaintiff appeared and raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal. The appellate court rejected the said plea of the plaintiff and considered the appeal on merit and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Dissatisfied therewith the plaintiff has filed the present appeal which was admitted on 31.8.1987 and the following substantial question of law was framed:--

(2.) Heard Mr. Ganpati Trivedi in support of the appeal. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) While assailing the judgment under appeal, Mr. Trivedi drew attention of the Court to Section 14 of the Act. Relying on an order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Tekriwal vs. Navin Chandra Singh, 1996 2 PLJR 556, it has been argued that the issue is now well settled that regular appeal in such circumstances would not lie. He has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shailendra Kr. Singh vs. Kamla Singh, 1992 2 PLJR 111to support his contention.