The special procedure for eviction suits under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, is not applicable to suits based on multiple grounds, including those covered by Section 14 and others.

S. J. Hyder, J. - Plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 filed the suit, out of which this revision arises, for eviction of the defendants. It was based on multiple grounds permissible for such a suit under section 11 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Plaintiff states that defendant no. 1 is his tenant and he has unlawfully sublet it to defendant no. 2. It was also disclosed in the plaint that the building was needed bona fide by the plaintiff for personal use and occupation.

2. Defendant no. 1 appeared before the trial court on October 10, 1983 and filed his written statement. Time had been granted to defendant no. 2 to file his written statement by October 24, 1983. On that date he made a motion that time so granted for filing written statement may be extended. On the said date the trial court realised that one of the grounds alleged in the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff-opp. party no. 1 was her personal necessity. By its ORDER :dated October 24, 1983, it directed that since defendant no 1 had not obtained any permission to contest the suit on the said ground in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 14 of thy Act, defendant no. 1 will be deemed to have accepted the correctness of the ground alleged by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1. In the said ORDER :the trial court also observed that it will be open to defendant no. 1 to contest the suit in respect of other grounds. At the same time, the trial court granted time to defendant no. 2 to file a written statement.

3. The present revision is directed against the ORDER :of the trial court dated October 24, 1983. The validity of the said ORDER :has been strongly assailed on behalf of defendant no. 1. In short, the argument advanced on behalf of the defendant-applicant is that two procedures cannot be followed in one and the same suit. It is pressed upon me that it is not possible to apply the procedure contained in Section 14 of the Act in respect of the grounds mentioned in clauses (c) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act and a different procedure in relation to other grounds mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act.

4. In ORDER :to appreciate the controversy in this revision certain developments in law concerning eviction of tenants of buildings may be noticed. The general law governing tenancy including those of buildings is confined in Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The law of tenancy contained in the said Act is one sided and is loaded in favour of the landlord. State enactments apart, all that a landlord the Transfer of Property Act is required to do, is to institute a suit for ejectment of a tenant after giving him 15 days clear notice terminating his tenancy with the expiry of the month of tenancy.

5. A process of change was set in motion even by the Raj. It was realised that some relief to tenants against threat of eviction from buildings was necessary. In the beginning relief as given to the tenants by ORDER :s passed under the Defence of India Act and the Rules framed thereunder by the District Magistrates. The solution of problem was found to be inadequate. After 1947, State Legislature had to enact different legislations protecting tenants from arbitrary ejectment, enhancement of rent and other incidental matters. This position continued to subsist for sufficiently long time. The State enactments which were mostly temporary in nature were found to be inadequate to deal with the problem.

6. It may be stated that the protection given to the tenants by the different State enactment gave a pretext to some tenants to prolong their occupation through diverse proceedings in the courts. Some of these legislations were so patently defective to cope with the problem that the apex court was compelled to observe that they provided a merry go round of litigation.

7. It gradually came to be realised that right was not always on the side of the tenant. It