JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.

(1) THIS appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Second Appeal No. 304 of 1990 passed on 9/09/1997.

(2) THE parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. The respondents- plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 167 of 1982 (12 of 1985) for eviction of the appellant-defendant from holding No. 1600 (new) (old holding No. 95) in Ward No.1 having an area of 7½ dhurs, Muhalla Waya Bazar, P.S.Siwan town P.S. No. 231, Siwan, Bihar (for short, the suit premises) on three grounds(1) default of the defendant in payment of rent from 14/08/1981 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11(2) reasonable personal requirement in good faith for the sons of the plaintiffs under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11, and (3) damage to the suit premises under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of The Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short, the Act). The plaintiffs averred that they purchased the suit premises under three registered sale deeds of 17/03/198 1/04/1981 and Ap 14/04/1981 from one Kedar Nath Sinha and immediately thereafter let them out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.300.00; the defendant did not pay the rent from the date of the commencement of the tenancy. The plaintiffs have six sons; three of them are major. The plaintiffs wanted to set up their children in business as they are unemployed; they. therefore, require the suit premises in good faith. The defendant contested the suit denying that he took the suit premises on rent from the plaintiffs. He stated that he had taken the suit premises on rent from the said Kedar Nath Sinha about 33 years back. He, however, alleged that he entered into an agreement for purchase of the suit premises and a Mahadnama (agreement for sale) was executed by the said Kedar Nath Sinha in his favour on 14/09/1980 and from that date he has been in possession as owner of the suit premises. The defendant also filed Title Suit No. 232 of 1983 of 1983 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Siwan praying the Court to grant specific performance of the said Mahadnama dated 14/09/1980. The said suit is pending. He denied that the ground of personal requirement of the plaintiffs was either reasonable or bonafide.

(3) ON 30/04/1985 the trial court after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit for eviction holding that there was no relationship of "landlord and tenant" between the plaintiffs and the defendant; it found that the plaintiffs had title to the suit premises; however, finding was recorded on the question of reasonable personal requirement in favour of the plaintiffs. Against the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No, 96 of 1985 in the court of 5th Add). District Judge, Siwan. On 26/05/1990 the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs then agitated their claim in Second Appeal No. 304 of 1990 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. On 9/09/1997 the High Court allowed the appeal taking the view that an equitable decree of eviction could be passed against the defendant on the basis of the title of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the first appellate court on the ground that it did not record any finding on the question of title of the parties. That judgment of the High Court is brought under challenge in this appeal by the defendant.

(4) MR. P.S. Misra. the learned senior counsel appearing for defendant, contended that provisions of Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be attracted to the suits as the court was exercising limited jurisdiction under the Act. Mr. Misra argued that in a suit for eviction under the Act the question of title to the suit premises could not be decided and that had to be done by a civil court in its ordinary jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court