The discrimination in the right of appeal between landlord and tenant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 may be justified if there is a rationale with justifiable object behind it. However, a hostile discrimination is objectionable when no rationale is available to justify it.

Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - SPECIAL PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE BIHAR BUILDING (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1982 - DISCRIMINATION IN RIGHT OF APPEAL - CONSTITUTIONALITY - SECTION 14(8) OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT OF OCCUPATION - SUBSTANTIAL SATISFACTION BY PART EVICTION - LEGAL TEST.
Fact of the Case:

A landlord filed a suit for eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Act). The trial court granted permission to the tenant to contest the suit and after hearing the parties, decreed the landlord's suit and ordered the tenant's eviction. The tenant filed a revision petition in the High Court challenging the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the special procedure for disposal of cases provided in Section 14 of the Act is justified for suits filed by a landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground specified in Clause (c) or (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, as a landlord requiring his house reasonably and in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by him may not wait the tedious and protracted trial, a first appeal and a second appeal. However, the Court found that the trial court failed to take notice of the provision in Clause (c) of Sub-section 11 (1) of Section of the Act, which requires the landlord to show that the building is required, reasonably and in good faith, for his own occupation or for occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord and also that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building and allowing the tenants to continue occupation of the rest.
Issues: 1. Whether the discrimination in the right of appeal between landlord and tenant under Section 14(8) of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the trial court erred in granting eviction without adjudicating whether the building was reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord and whether the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part of the building.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the discrimination in the right of appeal between landlord and tenant under Section 14(8) of the Act may be justified if there is a rationale with justifiable object behind it. However, the Court observed that a hostile discrimination is objectionable when no rationale is available to justify it. 2. The Court held that the trial court erred in granting eviction without adjudicating whether the building was reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord and whether the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part of the building.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and remitted the case for a re-hearing in accordance with law.

Judgment

Prabha Shankar Mishra, J.

1. This application was admitted to hearing on 22-7-1985 and ordered to be placed before an appropriate Bench for the said purpose on 12-8-1985

2. When this case, however, was placed for the hearing, a contention was raised that although the suit filed by the opposite party was tried in accordance with the special procedure prescribed Under Sec.14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), since it was decided on contest after the Court granted permission to the tenants-petitioner therefore, the application should be treated as a first appeal, yet another contention was raised based on the language used in Section 14 (2) of the Act, that a suit for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in Clause (c) or (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Act, be taken up for hearing in accordance with the procedure in Sec.14 of the Act, summons must issue in the prescribed form in every such suit. The word prescribed has been defined in Sec.2 (g) of the Act to mean, prescribed by rule. Since no rule has been prescribed, nor a notice contemplated in Sub-section (2) of Sec.14, but a notice of regular suit in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure had been issued. In such a situation, the trial, on the facts of this case, was not in accordance with the special procedure prescribed in Sec.14 of the Act but in accordance with the procedure for any other suit. Noticing in this order, dated 12-12-1985 the said two contentions and on the fact that on the latter contention, had referred a case to a Division Bench for decision, L.M. Sharma, J., ordered for placing this case before a Division Bench. The case has, accordingly, been listed before us for hearing.

3. Before I enter into the facts and the law in respect of the matter in issue before us, I may dispose of at least one contention that fell for consideration before me in a case and 1 referred the matter for hearing by a Division Bench. The said case has already been disposed by a Division Bench, of which 1 was a member and the question, therefore, as to the notice in the prescribed form, has been concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court.

4. In the case of Sardar Rajendra Singh V/s. Sardar Bahadur Singh, 1984 0 BLT 177. Haidar, J., had taken the view that Sub-section (2) of Sec.14 of the Act which has said that the Court would issue summons in the prescribed form in every suit referred in Sub-section (1) thereof could be satisfied if on service of notice and appearance, the party concerned submitted to the jurisdiction and the special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement or in other words the ground specified in Clause (c) or (e) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Act. The said view has been affirmed by the Division Bench, which has observed that a provision like one in Sub-section (2) of Sec.14 of the Act is not mandatory and if no form has been prescribed, still a notice served in a suit by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in Clauses (c) or (e) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Act, which is tried in accordance with the special procedure, no error of jurisdiction is committed, The Division Bench has rather strongly observed that by not framing the rule and prescribing the form of summons, as provided in Sub-section (2) of Sec.14 of the Act, the State Government has created this embarassing situation.

5. Since, however, a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, has taken the view that a trial in accordance with the special procedure prescribed in Sec.14 of the Act, if the condition precedent, that the ground for eviction was either one specified in Clauses (c) or (e) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Act, was satisfied, is not without jurisdiction and since we are in respectful agreement with the said view, I propose not to proceed any fur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1986 Supreme(Pat) 294

PATNA HIGH COURTP.S.Mishra and Abhiram Singh JJ.Bihar Alloy Steels Ltd.VersusHori Shanker Worah (Properties) Ltd.And Anr.Civil Revision No. 233 of 1985 ;Decided On : SEPTEMBER 10, 1986

Cases Referred (1)

PATNA HIGH COURT
P.S.Mishra and Abhiram Singh JJ.
Bihar Alloy Steels Ltd.
Versus
Hori Shanker Worah (Properties) Ltd.And Anr.
Civil Revision No. 233 of 1985 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 10, 1986