Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
4. The Full Bench has referred to Vi11od Kumar's case and distin- guished the same on the footing that the provisions of the two enactments are not pwi-materia .. The Full Bench has also considered the provisions of the two enactments. The reasons given by the Full Bench are appropriate and we agree with the same. We are also ofthe opinion that the decision of this Court in Vinod Kwiiar Chowdluy's case will not apply. As we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench, it is unnecessary for us to consider the question in detail. Suffice it to hold that the decision of the Full Bench is correct in law. Hence,· the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is over-ruled.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated before us that he is not supporting the judgment of the High Court in so far as it holds that the present suit for eviction filed by the appellant is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Even apart from his statement we find c that the cause of action for the second suit is entirely different from the E cause of action for the earlier suit and there is no chance of Order 2 Rule 2 barring this suit.
6. We have noticed that the respondents filed a Revision under Section 14(8) of the Act against the judgment of the Appellate Court granting a decree for eviction in favour of the appellant. Obviously that revision was not maintainable as there is no provision in Section 14(8) of the Act for a revision against an Appellate Order. The said sub-section refers only to an order passed by the Ttial Court for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord. If the Trial Court dismisses the suit, the only remedy of the landlord is to file an appeal under Section 96 CPC. When G such an appeal is disposed of by the Appellate Court, the further remedy of the aggrieved party is only under Section 100 CPC and there is no question of reverting back to Section 14(8) of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, the appellate order or decree can be considered to be an order of the Trial Court for recovery of possession within the meaning of H A Section 14(8) of the Act. Hence, the revision petition filed by the respon- dents before the High Court was not maintainable.
7. We find, however, the objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition was not taken by the appellant in the High Court. The revision was entertained and allowed by the High Court. In order to meet B the ends of justice we treat the said revision petition as a second appeal under Section 100 CPC and proceed to consider whether the .iudgment of the High Court is sustainable or not. Once the proceeding in the High Court is treated as a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the restrictions prescribed in the said Section would come into play. The High Court could C and ought to have dealt with the matter as a second appeal and found out whether a substantial question of law arose for consideration. Unless there was a substantial question of law, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain th~ second appeal and consider the merits. It has been held by this Court in Panclmgopal Banta & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & D Ors., J .T. (1997) 2 SC 554 and Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors., J.T. (1997) 5 SC 202, that existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In both the aforesaid cases, one of us (Dr. Anand, J .) was a party to the Bench and in the former, he spoke for the Bench.
8. That apart, on merits, the only other question relates to the bona fide requirement of the appellant that does not give rise to any substantial question of law. It is entirely a matter to be decided on an appreciation of the evidence. On a perusal of the judgment of the High Court it is evident that it had interfered with a finding of fact arrived at by the Second p Additional District Judge, Giridih in the first appeal on an appreciation of the evid!!nce. The High Court made an attempt to re-appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his bona fide requirement. In fact after a 'scanty discussion of the evidence, the High Court observed, "in this view of the matter I find and hold that the plaintiff miserably failed on factual aspect also to prove his bona fide G necessity." The High Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction in appreciating the evidence on record.
9. We have also been taken through the judgment of the Second Additional District Judge rendered in the first appeal against the judgment H of the Trial Court. We find that the Appellate Court has discussed the R.P.RAJAKv. NAND KUMAR AND BROS.[SRINIVASAN,J.] evidence threadbare and considered the matter in the proper perspective. The Appellate Court has considered all the materials on record and nothing has been omitted to be referred. Learned counsel for the respon- dents has contended that the Appellate Court omitted to consider an admission made by the plaintiff that his need could be satisfied if the adjacent shop occupied by another tenant Harish Chandra Bagga was delivered to him. We do not find any such admission on record. On the other hand, the categoric case of the appellant is ·that his requirement can be fulfilled only by vacating both the premises occupied by the tenants including the respondents. In so far as Harish Chandra Bagga is concerned it is stated by the appellant that he had earlier undertaken to vacate the shop in his occupation and ultimately handed over possession of the said shop to the appellant on 20.9 .97 during the pendency of this appeal. On a perusal of the record we are of the opinion that the finding of fact rendered by the Second Additional District Judge in the first appeal is conclusive and the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the said finding.
10. Consequently, the Civil Appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna in Civil Revision No. 416 of 1995 (R) is set aside. The judgment and decree for eviction ·passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Giridih in Eviction Appeal No, 6 of 1990 are restored. There will be no order as to costs.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents prayed for grant of one year time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the appellant has agreed to the same after obtaining instructions. In the circumstances, the respon- dents are granted time to vacate the suit premises till 14.8.1999 on condi- c tion that the respondents file the usual undertaking in this Court within a period of eight weeks from this date failing which, the benefit of grant of time will not be available to them. R.A. Appeal allowed.