P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) HEARD both sides.
(2.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed by the defendant -tenant under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The plaintiffs, the landlords of the building, filed the suit for eviction under Section 11(1) (c) and (d) of the Act on the ground that they bona fide required the building in question for their own occupation and on the ground that the rent payable by the tenant was in arrears and the defendant -tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent. The defend anttenant resisted the said application by denying the bona fide requirement of the building for the occupation of the plaintiffs and also denying that the rent was in arrears and he was a defaulter. A further plea was taken by the defendant that the suit premises was originally let out to his father, wherein he was carrying on his profession and after his death, the building was inherited by his successors -in -interest, including the defendant -tenant, that the other legal representatives of his father not having been impleaded as parties in the proceeding, the suit was not maintainable. The trial Court held on an appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, that the plaintiffs have proved their case and that a relationship of landlord and tenant exits between the plaintiffs and the defendant and that the plaintiffs required the suit premises for bonafide personal necessity. It further held that the rent was in arrears and hence the defendant -tenant was a defaulter since January, 1996 and was liable to be evicted from the suit premises under Section 11(1) (d) of the Act. Thus the trial Court ordered eviction both under Sections 11 (1) (c) and 11 (1) (d) of the Act. The defendant has filed this revision petition under Section 14 (8) of the Act challenging the order of eviction thus passed by the trial Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents raised an objection that the present revision is maintainable only in so far as it relates to the claim for eviction under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act and as far as the order for evidence under Section 11 (1) (d) is concerned, the tenant had a right of appeal and the revision was not maintainable. Hence, according to him, this revision petition is not maintainable, since the proceedings could not be bifurcated.;