VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are defendants of Title Eviction Suit No. 16 of 1992 which was filed by the opposite parties on the ground of personal necessity of opposite party no. 2 for the purpose of his Oil Mill business. Since the case was only on the ground of personal necessity of the suit premises, which is a building, it was under the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) and hence the court proceeded under the provision of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) THE defendants -petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order of eviction dated 28.3.1998, by which the learned Munsif, Patnacity decreed the aforesaid suit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further contended that the tenancy was only for the land and not for the building and hence the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. In this connection he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anant Pd. Sah @ Anant Kumar Gupta V/s. Devendra Nath Gupta and Ors. reported in 1993(2) P.L.J.R. 77, in which it was held that if the subject matter of the tenancy is a land, the suit can be filed only under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.