IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6699 of 2011 BHARAT SAH . Versus KAPIL DAS . ----------- 02. 20.04.2011 This writ petition is not maintainable as remedy to file appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1992(2) P.L.J.R. at page-692, para-12 that the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable. The para-12 reads as under: “A suit for eviction is filed in a court having jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure to entertain a suit. All suits for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 11 of the Act are filed in the Civil Court. Prior to the present Act all the suits for eviction on any of the grounds were disposed of by following the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure and the decree passed by the Civil Court was subject to appeal and second appeal. However, under the Act a special procedure has been provided under Section 14 of the Act for trial of the suit filed for eviction on the grounds of personal necessity and after expiry of the period of the tenancy, as provided under Section 11(1)(c) and (e) of the Act. The said procedure has overriding effect over other laws including the Code of Civil Procedure. Except for the special procedure for the trial of the suit for eviction on the aforesaid two grounds other provisions of the Code of Civil procedure are applicable for the trial of the suits for eviction. The court has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Act which means the Court having jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure to entertain a suit by a landlord against a tenant for recovery of possession of building in respect of which a suit or application is filed on the grounds provided under this Act. From bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear 2 that the suit is filed in a Court under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the aforesaid case of Chhotelall Pyarelal (supra) it appears that the eviction suit was filed before the Rent Controller and not before the Civil Court and in that context it was held that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the proceeding under the Rent Control Act. The observation made by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid unreported judgment that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the proceeding under the Act, in my opinion, does not state the correct statement of law as the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the eviction suits except where its application is specifically barred under the provision of the Act as in the case of trial of the suits of eviction on the ground of personal necessity and expiry of the terms of lease with regard to which a special procedure has been provided under section 14 of the Act. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to addition of parties, joinder of causes of action or other matters whose application is not barred are applicable during the trial of the suit under the Act.” The validity of Section 14(8) was challenged on the ground of violation of Article 14 that the landlord has been given remedy under C.P.C. while the tenant has been given the remedy under Section 14(8). Full Bench of this Court upheld the validity of Section 14(8) which is reported in 1990(2) P.L.J.R. 378 and it has been affirmed by A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2730. Thus, the petitioner is riveted to avail remedy of appeal. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Mkr. (Prakash Chandra Verma, J.)