IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C.R. No.699 of 2010
AYODHYA SAH, SON OF LATE SHAMBHU SAH,
RESIDENT OF MAUZA AHIRPURWA, P.S. ARRAH
TOWN, P.O. ARRAH, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR.
.......................................PLAINTIFF...PETITIONER.
Versus
1. BAIJU SAH.
2. BAIJNATH SAH, BOTH SONS OF LATE SHIVRAJ
SAH, RESIDENT OF MAUZA LALGANJ, P.S.
CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT,
RESIDING AT MOHALLA-AHIRPURWA, P.S. ARRAH
TOWN, P.O. ARRAH, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR.
........................DEFENDANTS-OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate.
———–
4. 26.8.2010. The office has forwarded a report that this Civil
Revision filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings
(Lease, Rent & Eviction), Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”) does not appear to be maintainable in
view of the fact that the suit filed by the landlord for eviction
of the tenant has been dismissed.
A Full Bench of this Court in Mostt. Sarswati Devi
and Others Vs. Kunti Devi and another, reported in 1991(2)
Bihar Law Judgments 216 as well as another Full Bench of
this Court in Md. Jainul Ansari and Others Vs. Md. Khalil,
-2-
reported in 1990(2) P.L.J.R. 378, has held that the provisions
as contained in sub Section 8 of Section 14 of the Act does not
impose bar on preferring an appeal from a decision of court
dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for eviction. The bar is only
operative against the order of eviction of the tenant passed in
favour of the plaintiff.
In the above view of the matter, an appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before an
appropriate forum would be maintainable. From bare reading
of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would be
manifest that a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure would not be maintainable in this case for the
reason that the same would only be maintainable if there is no
provision of preferring any appeal against the order impugned.
In the above view of the matter, it is quite clear that if
the suit of plaintiff filed for eviction of the tenant even on the
ground of personal necessity is dismissed then the only course
open for challenging the aforesaid order would be by
preferring an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest
-3-
the stamp report and seeks permission to withdraw this Civil
Revision to file an appeal before the appropriate forum.
Permission is accorded.
This Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn with a
liberty to the petitioner to avail a remedy against the impugned
order by preferring an appeal before the appropriate forum. If
such appeal is preferred before the appropriate forum within
six weeks from the date of this order alongwith a petition for
condoning the delay taking a ground that this revision was
preferred bonafide against the impugned order, the court
concerned shall dispose of the same in accordance with law
after consideration of such averments made on behalf of the
petitioner.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)
P.S.