AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Vs. MUSTAQUAIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 ('the Act' in short) is by the plaintiffs. They filed suit for eviction of the defendants-opposite party on the ground of personal necessity. The suit has been decreed but only with respect to part of the premises. The point for consideration is whether this civil revision, at the instance of the plaintiffs, is maintainable.

(2.) Section 14 or the Act provides for special procedure for disposal of suits for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and expiry of the period of lease/tenancy. Sub-section (8) thereof bars appeal against the order for recovery of possession made in accordance with the special procedure. The proviso to sub-section (8), however, provides that on an application made within 60 days of the date of order of eviction, the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order under this Section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. It is obvious that the remedy provided under the proviso is available only to tenants against whom order of eviction has been made. In other words, while no appeal against order for recovery of possession lies, an aggrieved tenant may file an application to the High Court against the order of eviction. A controversy arose as to the rights of the plaintiff-landlord whose suit for eviction is dismissed. The controversy stands settled by Full Bench decision of this court in Md. Zainul Ansari v. Md. Khalil, 1990 (2) PLJR 378 ; 1990(2) BLJ 601. This Court held that the provisions of Section 14 (8) do not take away the landlord's right of appeal available to him under Section 96 or Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners on the question of maintainability of the civil revision is that the plaintiffs' suit having been decreed, the appeal against such decree would not be maintainable and, therefore, they have no other remedy than to file revision application in this court. The submission, in my opinion, is wholly misconceived.