IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.141 of 2011 ====================================================== Suresh Pd. Gupta, s/o late Nunu Lal Gupta Cloth Shop in front of Mukti Ram Banka Shop Naya Bazar, Pachna Road, P.O. & P.S.& Dist-Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner Versus Shyam Sundar Tibrewal , s/o late Bihari Lal Tibrewal, resident of Naya Bazar, P.O. & P.S. & Dist. Lakhisarai .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rudal Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 13 16-04-2012 Heard the parties on the maintainability of this revision application. 2. This revision application has been filed under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as „B.B.C. Act‟) assailing the judgment and decree dated 12-7-2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Lakhisarai, dismissing the Title(Eviction) Appeal No. 01 of 2011 filed by the defendant- Patna High Court C.R. No.141 of 2011 (13) dt.16-04-2012 2 / 7 2 tenant- petitioner against the decree and order of eviction passed in Title(Eviction) Suit No. 01 of 2006 by Munsif, Lakhisarai. 3. Filtering the unnecessary details, admittedly the Title(Eviction) Suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party seeking eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises only on the ground of personal necessity. The defendant-petitioner appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party. The suit was decreed holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant and further holding that the plaintiff has got personal necessity for the suit premises. The defendant-petitioner filed Title(Eviction)Appeal against the decree and order of eviction and the appellate court has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable by its judgment and decree, which is impugned in this revision application. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party in this revision application, at the outset, has raised an objection to the maintainability of this revision application against the impugned judgment and decree. It has been submitted that against the judgment and decree of the appellate court below this revision application under section 14(8) of the B.B.C.Act is not maintainable. However, supporting the maintainability of this Patna High Court C.R. No.141 of 2011 (13) dt.16-04-2012 3 / 7 3 revision application, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that as the Eviction Suit had not been tried in accordance with the special procedure prescribed in section 14 of the B.B.C. Act, an appeal against the judgment and order of eviction passed in the said Suit would be maintainable, and the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court below by the impugned judgment and decree is clearly illegal, and reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of this Court, reported in 1984 PLJR 64 and also the Bench decision of this Court in 1992(2)PLJR 111. 5. Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act envisages special procedure for hearing and disposal of the Eviction Suit in which the eviction has been sought on the ground of personal necessity or the expiry of the lease as specified in clause(c) and clause(e) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the B.B.C. Act. Under sub-section(8) of section 14 of the B.B.C. Act filing of an appeal or second appeal against an order for recovery of possession passed in such Eviction Suit is barred, but simultaneously an application in revision against such order of eviction before the High Court has been provided wherein the High Court has been empowered to satisfy itself that the eviction order has been made in accordance with law. The provision of section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act came Patna High Court C.R. No.141 of 2011 (13) dt.16-04-2012 4 / 7 4 up for consideration before the Bench of this Court in the case of Shailendra Kr. Singh Vs. Kamla Prasad Singh[ 1992(2) PLJR 111] wherein the decision in the case of Md. Akbar Khan Vs. Samsul Khan[ 1984 PLJR 64] , which had also been relied on behalf of the petitioner, has been noticed with approval. Their Lordships considered the eventuality when a suit, which was required to be tried in accordance with the specific procedure envisaged under section 14 of the B.B.C. Act has been decided without following the said procedure, and held that in such a case the bar to appeal or second appeal provided in section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act would not be attracted as in such a case the order for recovery of possession of the suit premises would not conform to the expression “ order made in accordance with the procedure specified in this section.” However, their Lordships have also laid down that if a party fails to raise objection regarding the procedure being adopted by the court in the suit at the initial stage or fails to move the High Court in revision against the order refusing to follow the special procedure, he cannot be permitted to attack the final judgment before the higher Court on the ground that the special procedure prescribed has not been followed. 6. The instant revision application has been filed invoking the provision of section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act, but the challenge Patna High Court C.R. No.141 of 2011 (13) dt.16-04-2012 5 / 7 5 has been made to the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court below holding the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the judgment and decree passed in Title(Eviction) Suit No. 01 of 2006 was not appellable at all. The said provision does not authorize filing of revision application before the High Court against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court holding the appeal to be not maintainable, and confines the filing of such revision application only against the order of eviction. In this revision application the judgment and order of eviction passed in Title(Eviction)Suit No. 1 of 2006 has not been impugned. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to make out a case that the dismissal of appeal would amount to affirmance of the judgment and decree in the Title(Eviction) Suit, and has submitted that in this view of the matter this revision application under section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act is maintainable But, in view of the legal position laid down by their Lordships in the case of Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar(A.I.R. 1998 SC 2730) this submission cannot be accepted. Their Lordships in the said decision has laid down as follows:- “We have noticed that the respondents filed a Revision under Section 14(8) of the Act against the judgment of the Appellate Court granting a decree for eviction in favour of Patna High Court C.R. No.141 of 2011 (13) dt.16-04-2012 6 / 7 6 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 trial Court for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord…………………… By no stretch of imagination, the appellate order or decree can be considered to be an order of the trial Court for recovery of possession within the meaning of Section 14(8) of the Act………………”. 7. Although in the aforesaid decision their Lordships were considering a case where the dismissal of a suit for eviction was reversed by the appellate court granting the decree for eviction in favour of the appellant-landlord, yet the principles as laid down in that decision can also be applied to the facts of this case where the tenant‟s appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction has been dismissed as not maintainable by the appellate court, and the revision application is filed by the tenant under section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act assailing the judgment and decree of the appellate court by insisting that the appeal was maintainable as the special procedure under section 14 of the B.B.C. Act had not been followed in the trial of the suit. In such a case the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court can be challenged only under section 100 C.P.C. by filing a second appeal and the revision Patna High Court C.R. No.141 of 2011 (13) dt.16-04-2012 7 / 7 7 under section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act against such judgment and decree is definitely not maintainable. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, it becomes evident that the petitioner has the remedy either under section 100 C.P.C. by filing a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the appellate court or by filing a revision application under section 14(8) of the B.B.C. Act before this Court against the judgment and order of eviction passed by the trial court. 9. Thus, in any view of the matter, this revision application is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. However, the dismissal of this revision application shall not prejudice the petitioner from availing either of the legal remedies, as aforementioned, in accordance with law. .Roy/- (V. Nath, J)