IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11991 of 2011 Badri Narayan Prasad Chaudhary Versus Sri Purushottam Kumar & Anr ----------- 03. 29.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Dronacharya appearing on behalf of the petitioner. (2) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.04.2011 passed by the District Judge, Patna in civil Misc. transfer petition No.325 of 2010. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one eviction suit being Eviction Suit No.16 of 2009 has been filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner. The respondent No.2 is the purchaser from respondent No.1. The petitioner has filed suit for specific performance of contract being Title Suit No.79 of 2010 wherein both the respondents are party. The eviction suit is pending before the Court of Munsif I, Court, Patna whereas the suit for specific performance of contract is pending before Sub Judge I, Patna. The learned counsel further submitted that because the subject matter is same and the issue involved in both the suits and the witnesses will be the same, therefore, both suits should have been amalgamated and heard - 2 - together, but the learned District Judge, Patna refused the prayer by the impugned order. (4) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that although the transfer petition was filed before the District Judge, but when the same was called for hearing, nobody appeared to press the transfer application. The District Judge observed that one suit is eviction suit under B.B.C. Act and the other suit is filed by the petition for specific performance of contract and, therefore, the prayer was rejected. (5) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised by the High Court for keeping the interfere courts within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duties requires in a legal manner. Here, admittedly, the eviction suit has been filed by the landlord under the Special Act, i.e., Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for eviction of the petitioner. The suit for specific performance of contract has been filed by the petitioner under the Specific Relief Act. So far eviction suit is concerned, the only question to be decided is whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and any ground has enumerated as Section 11 of the B.B.C. Act arises or not. - 3 - So far suit for specific performance of contract is concerned, the question to be decided is whether so called contract is genuine or not and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract within the period stipulated in the contract. Therefore, it cannot be said that the issues in both the cases are identical. So far specific performance of contract suit is concerned, if the plaintiff suit will be decreed then automatically he will be entitled for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The revision or appeal of the eviction suit will be controlled by the B.B.C. Act whereas the revision or appeal so far suit for specific performance of contract is concerned, it will be governed by the general act. (6) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the impugned order is neither arbitrary, illegal nor it can be said that the lower Court acted without jurisdiction or beyond his jurisdiction and thereby failure of justice or grave injustice has been occasioned. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ application and accordingly it is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)