1. In this application under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the tenant-defendants, an interesting question arises for consideration of this Court, namely, as to whether the court of appeal below has committed any error of jurisdiction in applying the provisions of S.14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1983 (Bihar Act IV of 1983) by refusing to admit their appeal in regard to their eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord opposite party.

2. The title suit in question was instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Biharsharif, on the 21st. December, 1982, for eviction of the petitioners, on various grounds, including the ground of personal necessity, from the premises in question. After services of summonses and registered covers, the petitioners appeared in the suit on the 24th January, 1983, with an affidavit. The order of the trial court, recorded on the 24th January, 1983, reads as follows--

From a perusal of the order sheet of the lower court it does nor appear as to what was the ex parte order, which was passed against the defendants, which they wanted to be recalled and that was ultimately allowed to be recalled on payment of costs. Be that as it may, the trial court recalled the order and also granted time till the 1st February, 1983, for filing written statement and settlement of issues. On that date, i.e., the 1st February, 1983, the written statement was filed and accepted. The hearing of the suit commenced on the 9th February, 1983, and it was concluded on the 24th February, 1983, followed by the judgment on the 26th February, 1983, against the petitioners.

3. Against the above judgment, the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge of Nalanda, and, in the admission matter, a question arose as to whether any appeal lay against that part of the judgment which related to the personal necessity of the plaintiff, in view of the provisions contained in sub-sec. (8) of S.14 of the Act and the learned District Judge held that in view of the special provision, no appeal lay to that extent.

4. In this application, it has been argued by Mr. S.S.Asghar Hussain, appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the mischief of sub-sec, (8) of S.14 would apply only if the order for recovery of possession of any premises was made in accordance with the procedure specified in S.14 of the said Act. In other words, the argument is that if the trial court did pass order of eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal necessity without following the new procedure enacted in S.14 of the new Act, then the bar of sub-sec. (8) would have no application.

5. I find myself in agreement with Mr. Hussain, as sub-sec. (8), which reads as follows, clearly stipulated the bar of an appeal or a second appeal against such an order only in cases where the order for eviction has been passed in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. If, however, the court has not followed the procedure prescribed under S.14 for passing an order, then obviously, I have no doubt in my mind that the bar will not be attracted.

"(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made in accordance with procedure specified in this section : Provided that on an application being made within sixty days of the date of the order of eviction, the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order under the Section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit."

The intention of the Legislature is for a summary and quick disposal of eviction suits, which go on lingering for decades in this State. Hardship of the landlord seeking recovery of possession of premises or buildings for his personal occupation has been taken note of by the Legislature and for that a speedy machinery and procedure has been proscribed for the disposal of the suit as well as