JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30th November, 1988 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Munsif, Begusarai, in Eviction Suit No. 10 of 1985/95 of 1988 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit premises for their own occupation.
2. At the time of hearing, a Full Bench decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 45 of 1988 (R)–Md. Jainul Ansari and Ors. v. Md. Khalil, overruling a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1986 PLJR 950–Shri Udai Banerjee v. Shri P.R. Dutta–was brought to our notice. It has been held by the Full Bench in C.R. 45/88 (R) that when a suit for eviction is dismissed, then the remedy available to a plaintiff landlord is to file an appeal and not a revision petition before the High Court. Learned Counsel for the defendant opponents, however, contended that the Full Bench decision requires reconsideration in view of the fact that the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) have not been noticed. Learned Counsel contends that as the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes is made applicable to the hearing of a suit under Section 14 of the Act, by virtue of Sub-section (7) thereof the remedy of an appeal is barred because no appeal lies from a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the contention that the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 14 of the Act bar an appeal from a decree dismissing a suit for eviction cannot be upheld. That provision, in our opinion, has no bearing on the question as to whether an appeal or a revision lies from a decree passed in a suit under Section 14 of the Act. That provision merely lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law, the Court while hearing a suit under this section shall follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence. That provision does not deal with the remedy available to a party which may be aggrieved by the decree passed by the court trying a suit under Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Act deals with the question of appeal and revision. The Full Bench, after considering the provisions of Sub-section (8), has held that the provision does not bar an appeal from a decree dismissing a plaintiff’s suit for eviction. We see no cogent reason to take a view different from that taken by the Full Bench in C.R. 45 of 1988 (R).
4. We, therefore, hold that this revision petition is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs of this revision petition in the circumstances of the case. It is needless to point out that the petitioners in the instant case shall have the remedy of preferring an appeal before the competent court and to seek condonation of delay on the ground that they were prosecuting a revision petition in good faith.
