Satyeshwar Roy, J.

1. This is an application in revision filed under proviso to Sec.14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Rent Act) challenging the order passed by the learned Munsif decreeing the suit for eviction of the petitioner from a building on the ground of personal necessity as provided under Sec.11 (l) (c) of the Rent Act.

2. According to the plaint, the opposite party-plaintiff resides in a rent building with her husband and family. The rented building is neither suitable nor sufficient for her accommodation. She requires the suit building for her own residence and for the occupation of her husband and children. The opposite party purchased the suit building on 24-2-1984 and the petitioner defendant is in occupation of the same as a tenant from before her purchase. After purchasing it, she repeatedly requested the petitioner to vacate it, but he did not. On these averments a decree for eviction was prayed. Although in the original plaint, the opposite party also stated that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the rent from March to July, 1984, that statement was deleted by amendment of the plaint before the service of summons on the petitioner.

3. The petitioner in his written statement, after stating the usual technical objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, like waiver and estoppel etc. stated that he was never informed about the purchase of the suit building by the opposite party and he did not attorn to her. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He was never asked to vacate the suit building. The opposite party does not require the suit building for her use and occupation ; rather she is negotiating to transfer it and in order to get fancy price, she instituted the suit to get vacant possession as no buyer will purchase a tenanted building.

4. It may be noticed that although in the plaint, as amended, prayer for decree for eviction was made only on the ground of personal necessity as envisaged in Sec.11 (1) (c) of the Rent Act, yet the procedure laid down in Section 14 which applies to such suits was not followed. Thus, although the petitioner after his appearence in the suit did not file any application lor leave to contest the suit, his written statement was accepted and he was allowed to contest the suit.

5. Three points were urged by Mr. Prasad, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, namely : (a) as the procedure laid down in Sec.14 of the Rent Act was not followed, the order was vitiated ; (b) as there was variance between pleading and proof, the court below ought to have held that the opposite party has failed to prove that she required it bona fide for her own use and occupation ; (c) as the court below did not record any finding in terms of the proviso to Sec.11 (1) (c), the order cannot be sustained.

6. Before proceeding with the submissions made by Mr. Prasad, it is necessary first to decide what is the power of this court in this type of revision application. No precedent has been cited at the Bar on this question. Section 14 (8) of the Act reads as follows :

"14.- (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. "

Court may interfere only if it is satisfied that the order is not "according to law". Therefore this is the limitation put on the power of the court.

7 What is meant "according to law" "judgment according to law is not invariably the same thing as judgment according to the merit of the particular case from which the judgment flows. The hall-mark of judgment according