- (1.) The appellant is landlord of a shop measuring 6' X 17-1/2' which is occupied by the respondents as tenants. The appellant filed Eviction Suit No. 19/85 under the general law in the Court of District Munsif, Giridih for evicting the respondents on two grounds :- (i) non-payment of rent; and (ii) bona fide personal requirement. The suit was dismissed and an appeal by the appellant also failed. He filed a second appeal, during the pendency of which he filed the present Eviction Suit No. 35/89 on the file of the District Munsif, Giridih under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act') on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal occupation. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal, the appellant succeeded and got a decree for eviction against the respondents. Against the said decree, the respondents filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 14(8) of the Act. When the said Revision Petition was pending the appellant withdrew his second Appeal filed in the earlier proceedings and got it dismissed. Thereafter, the High Court allowed the Revision Petition filed by the respondents on two grounds, namely :- (i) the second suit for eviction filed by the appellant was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, CPC and (ii) the appellant's requirement for personal occupation was not bona fide. It is that judgment of the High Court which is challenged in this appeal.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents at the hearing of the appeal that the appellant's appeal before the District Court against the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court was not maintainable and consequently the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court in favour of the appellant was invalid. The contention of the respondents is that by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 13 and 14(8) of the Act, the only remedy available to the appellant against the dismissal of his suit for eviction was an application to the High Court for revision of the order of the trial Court. In answer to the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the question has been discussed and considered in detail by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Mohd. Jainul Ansari v. Khalil, (1990) 2 Pat LJR 378, and that it has been decided by the Full Bench that if a suit for eviction ends in dismissal by the trial Court, the remedy of the landlord is to challenge the same under Section 96, CPC as there is no provision in Section 14 or in the Act prescribing any remedy to the landlord. Learned counsel represented that the said judgment of the Full Bench has not been challenged in this Court and it holds the field.
(3.) It is the contention of the respondents that the judgment of the Full Bench is erroneous as it runs counter to the judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar Chowdhry v. Smt. Narain Devi Taneja, (1980) 2 SCC 120 : (AIR 1980 SC 2012) in which a corresponding provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was considered. According to learned counsel for the respondents the provisions in the Delhi Rent Control Act and the Bihar Act are pari materia and the judgment of the Supreme Court would govern the question. We are unable to agree.;