In a suit for eviction, the right of appeal to the defendant-tenant cannot be taken away by virtue of Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, where the court, after following the summary procedure, gives equitable relief on proof of the plaintiff-landlord's title.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. This Revision application has been filed by the defendants-tenants under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1997 passed by Munsif, I, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 9 of 1992. By the said judgment and decree, the aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed on the ground of personal necessity.

2. The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, which is a land and house comprised within the survey plot No. 652 under Khata No. 152 situated at Begusarai. The plaintiff said to have purchased the said plot along with other Khesra which is compact block having residential house thereon. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the house standing on a portion of the aforesaid plot on monthly rent of Rs. 400.00 . The plaintiff several times demanded rent but the, defendant never paid the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as he wants to start this own business of Hardware in the suit premises. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendants have asserted that the land in dispute was recorded as Gairmazrua Khas land in the Cadesteral Survey Record of rights, but the remark column of Khatiyan, Makan and Sahan in possession of Mosst. Chhediya was recorded who was coming in peaceful possession of the said plot and said Mosst. Chhediya in the year 1910 had adopted Bachchu Mahto the grand father of these defendants as son. Mosst. Chhediya died in the year 1923 and since then the grand-father of these defendants and after his death these defendants are residing in the suit premises as their own property and they have perfected their right, title and interest over the suit property by remaining in continuos possession since long. The defendants further asserted that neither the plaintiff nor his vendor have any concern with the suit premises and they have no right, title and interest over the same. Defendants further case is that they have filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1988 against the vendor of the plaintiff and the same is pending in appeal. The suit, therefore, according to the defendants, is barred by limitation and also barred under Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed as many as following eight issues:

1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

2. Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action or right to sue?

3. Is the suit barred by law of Limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiff is landlord and the defendants are tenants of the suit premises?

5. Whether the plaintiff has personal necessity of the suit premises?

6. Whether the partial eviction of the suit premises is sustainable?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of eviction as prayed for?

8. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

Issue Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been taken up together by the Court below and after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, it came to a finding that the plaintiff successfully proved his right and title over the suit premises and further held that the plaintiff has been able to prove his personal necessity. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Hence this revision application.

4. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Shreenath Singh, Senior Counsel for the opposite party-landlord.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the Court below committed serious illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree by following summary