LexRAM PRASAD RAJAK versus NANO KUMAR AND BROS. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.J \ RAM PRASAD RAJAK A v. NANO KUMAR AND BROS. AND ANR. AUGUST 18, 1998 [DR. AS. ANAND AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B Rent Control & Eviction : Bihar Buildings (lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1981:-Section 14-Eviction suit-Dismissal of-Remedy agai11sHfeld, la11dlord can cl!al- C lenge it by filing appeal u/s 96 Civil Procedure Code-No Provisio11 in the Act prescribing any remedy to the landlord-Revision 11/s 14(8) of the Act against decree of eviction passed by Appellate Cowt-Whether maimainable-Held, No. Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section lOfJ-£victio11 suit-Bonafide Re- D quireme11t-Findi11g off act-High Cowt, in second appeal not empowered to reappreciate evide11ce 011 record and i11te1fere with finding recorded by llial Cowt. The appellant, landlord of a shop which was occupied by the respon- dents as tenants, filed Eviction Suit u/s 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 on the ground of bo11afide requirement for personal oci:u 1iation. That suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. However, on appeal, the appellant got a decree for eviction against the respondents. The respondents filed a Civil Revision Petition u/S 14(8) of the. Act, which was allowed. This appeal had been filed against the judg- ment of the High Court. E F TI1e respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court was not maintainable as by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 13 and G 14(8) of the Act, the only remedy available to the appellant was an appiica- tion to the High Court for revision of the order llf the Trial Court. The appellant alleged that as decided by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Mohd. Jai1111lA11sali v. Kllalil, (1990) 2 PWR 378 which holds the field, if a suit for eviction ends in dismissal by the Trial Court, the H 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A remedy of the landlord is to challenge the same under Section 96 CPC as there is no provision in Section 14 or in the Act prescribing·any remedy to the landlord. Allowirig the Appeal, this Court B HELD : 1.1. The decision of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Mohd. Jainul Ansaii v. Khalil, holding that if a snit for eviction filed under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & l~viction) Control Act, 1982, ends in dismissal by the Trial Court, the remedy of the landlord is to challenge the same u/S 96 Civil Procedure Code as there is C no provision in Section 14 or in the Act prescribing any remedy to the landlord, is correct in law. The reasons given by the Full B1~nch are appropriate. The Full Bench has referred to the judgment of this Court in Vi11od Kumar Chowdluy v. Smt. Narain Devi Ta11eja and rightly distin- guished the same on the footing that the provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the Ribar Act are not paii-mate1ia. [4-F-H; 5-B] D ~. E Vi11od Kumar Clwwdluy v. Smt. Narain Devi Ta11eja, [1980] 2 SCC 120, distinguished. Mohd. Jai11ztl Ansaii v. Khalil, (1990) 2 PWR 378 (FB), approved. 1.2. The respondents filed a Revision under Section 14(8) of the Act against the judgment of the Appellate Court granting a decree for evictirm in favour of the Appellant. Obviously that revision was not maintainable as there is no provision in Section 14(8) of the Act for a revision against an Appellate Order. The said sub-section refers only to an order passed by the F Trial Court for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord. If the Trial Court dismisses the suit, the only remedy of the landlord is to file all appeal under Section 96 CPC. When such an appeal is disposed of by thn! Appel- late Court, the further remedy of the aggrieved party is only under Section 100 CPC and there is no c1uestion of reverting back to Section 14(8) of the G Act. The appellate order or decree can not be considered to be an order of the trial Court for recovery of possession within the meaning of Section 14(8) of the Act. Hence, the revision petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was not maintainable. [5-F-H; 6-A] 1.3. Considering that the objection as to the maintainability of the H revision petition was not taken by the appellant in the High Court and the R.P. RAJAK v. NANO KUMAR AND BROS.[SRINIVASAN,J.] 3 revision was entertained and allowed, in order to meet the ends of justice A that revision petition was to be treated as a second appea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.