IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

C.R. No.430 of 2010

MD. ABDUL SAYEED @ MD. SAYEED, SON OF LATE ABDUL

SAMAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-MOHIUDDIN ALICHAK,

P.O.

AND

P.S.

HABIBPUR

(JAGDISHPUR),

DISTRICT-

BHAGALPUR.

………………..…….DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER.

Versus

MD. SAMSAD @ POLLO, SON OF LATE MD. SAMSUL HODA,

RESIDENT

OF

MOHALLA-TATARPUR,

P.O.

AND

P.S.

TATARPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR.

……………………PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY.

-----------

For the Petitioner : M/s. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate,

Satish Chandra Mishra and Md. Nurul Hoda,

Advocates.

For the Opp. Party: Mr. Shiv Nandan Rai, Senior Advocate.

------------

5.

7.7.2010.

This Civil Revision is directed against the order

dated 3.2.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast

Track Court No.III, Bhagalpur, in Titile Appeal No.36 of 2009,

whereby the prayer of the respondent-petitioner to hold that the

aforesaid appeal would not be maintainable in view of the

provisions as contained under Section 14(8) of the Bihar

Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, had been rejected.

I have heard the parties and perused the records of

this Case.

2

This matter is being disposed of at this stage with

the consent of the parties.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of this

case are as follows:

Eviction Suit No.39 of 2001 was filed by the

plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner

on the ground of personal necessity. The trial court held that

the plaintiff had bonafide personal requirement of the suit

premises. However, it has further held that the personal

necessity of the landlord, i.e., the plaintiff-opposite party could

be satisfied by partial eviction of the tenant as detailed in the

order/ judgment dated 24.3.2009. The plaintiff-opposite party,

being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order/ judgment and

decree aforesaid, preferred Title Appeal No.36 of 2009. In the

aforesaid Title Appeal, the defendant-respondent-petitioner

filed a petition dated 10.12.2009 raising a question therein that

the aforesaid appeal, in view of the provisions as contained

under Section 14(8) of the Act, would not be maintainable as

rather only remedy would be a revision under Section 14(8) of

the Act. The appellate court did not accept the contention

raised on behalf of the respondent-petitioner and disposed of

the petition by the impugned order dated 3.2.2010 directing the

3

appeal to be put for hearing. Hence, this Civil Revision has

been filed by the petitioner challenging the propriety and

legality of the aforesaid order dated 3.2.2010.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that the appeal would not be maintainable

for two reasons. Firstly, that the statute provides only a

revision against an order/judgment/decree passed in a eviction

suit filed on the ground of bonafide personal necessity and

disposed of following the procedure laid down under Section

14 of the Act. The second contention raised on behalf of the

petitioner was that the findings recorded in the concerned order/

judgment of the trial court under appeal having been in favour

of the plaintiff-appellant and the suit having been decreed in his

favour, there was no occasion for him to challenge the aforesaid

judgment and decree in appeal. In support of his submission,

learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court

rendered in Banarsi Sah and others Vs. Bhagwanlal Sah and

others (AIR 1977 Patna 206). It has been submitted that this

Court had held in the aforesaid case that where a decree is

absolutely in favour of a party but some issues are found

against him, he would have no right of appeal against the

decree.

4

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on

b