RAM PRASAD RAJAK versus NANO KUMAR AND BROS. AND ANR.

RAM PRASAD RAJAK versus NANO KUMAR AND BROS. AND ANR.

The remedy for a landlord against dismissal of an eviction suit by the trial court under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is appeal under Section 96 CPC, as neither Section 14 nor any other provision of the Act prescribes an alternative remedy. Revision under Section 14(8) does not lie against appellate orders, and the High Court, treating the revision as a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, acted beyond its jurisdiction by interfering with the appellate court’s findings of fact regarding bona fide requirement, since no substantial question of law arose.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Prasad Rajak; Respondents: Nano Kumar and Bros.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision in Civil Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment and order of the High Court set aside. Eviction decree restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Requirement, Jurisdiction of Appellate and Revisional Courts, Maintainability of Appeal and Revision, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, Sections 96 and 100 CPC
Rent Control Civil Procedure Eviction Bonafide Requirement Jurisdiction of Appellate and Revisional Courts Maintainability of Appeal and Revision Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Sections 96 and 100 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Prasad Rajak

Appellant

Nano Kumar and Bros.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision in Civil Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal is maintainable against dismissal of eviction suit under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, or revision is the only remedy.
  2. 2 Whether a revision against an appellate order granting eviction decree is maintainable under Section 14(8) of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether High Court can interfere with factual findings relating to bonafide requirement in second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The remedy for a landlord against dismissal of an eviction suit by the trial court under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is appeal under Section 96 CPC, as neither Section 14 nor any other provision of the Act prescribes an alternative remedy. Revision under Section 14(8) does not lie against appellate orders, and the High Court, treating the revision as a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, acted beyond its jurisdiction by interfering with the appellate court’s findings of fact regarding bona fide requirement, since no substantial question of law arose.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment and order of the High Court set aside. Eviction decree restored.

Orders

  • Eviction decree of Second Additional District Judge, Giridih in Eviction Appeal No. 6 of 1990 restored.
  • Respondents granted time to vacate suit premises until 14.8.1999, subject to filing usual undertaking within eight weeks.