Judgment S.Shamsul Hasan, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment of affirmance. 2. The dispute relates to eviction of the defendants from the suit premises bearing plot No. 1948 appertaining to Khata No. 3 in Masaurhi Bazar, district Patna, as also for arrears of rent. 3. According to the case of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and his four sons, including defendant No. 3, constituted a joint Hindu Mtakshra family with defendant No. 1 as Karta thereof. Defendant No. 1 took the suit premises on mortgage on 4, 3. 1969 for a sum of Rs. 8,500.00 in the name of defendant No. 3 for three years. The mortgage was redeemed on 5. 8. 1973. Thereafter defendant No. 1 took the suit premises on monthly rental of Rs. 105/- from the plaintiff payable in the first week of the each succeeding month. According to the plaintiff, the defendants did not pay rent from October, 1973, and after due notices the tenancy was terminated. Still the defendants did not vacate the premises nor did they pay the arrears of rent. 4. Two written statements were filed, one by defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the other by defendant No. 3 Parmila devi, wife of Sitaram, who died before the written statement was filed, and was substituted in his place, along with other heirs. The first set of defendants stated that the suit was not maintainable, it was barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and limitation and further that they bad no concern with the premises in question. There was also no relationship of landlord and the tenant. The other set of defendants stated that defendant No. 1 and Ors. had their separate business and defendant No. 1 was not the Karta of the family nor the family was joint. Sitaram, original defendant No. 3, took the premises in question on mortgage under a registered mortgage deed dated 14.3.1969 for Rs. 8500.00 out of his personal income and subsequently be reduced the same on 5.8.1973. Thereafter he took the premises on monthly rental of Rs. 25/- and advanced Rs. 2000.00 to the plaintiff which was to be adjusted towards future rent and thus the rent up to 4.4.1980 having been paid there has been no question of arrears of rent. Both the sets of defendants denied the plea of personal necessity of the plaintiff. Thereafter he took the premises on monthly rental of Rs. 25/- and advanced Rs. 2000.00 to the plaintiff which was to be adjusted towards future rent and thus the rent up to 4.4.1980 having been paid there has been no question of arrears of rent. Both the sets of defendants denied the plea of personal necessity of the plaintiff. 5. The substantial questions of law, as framed, are; (i) Whether in view of the re-introduction of the Building Control Law in whole of the State the decision of the appellate Court is illegal? (ii) Whether the decree of eviction passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is fit to be set aside as the same has not been granted on the grounds mentioned in Sec.11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent Eviction) Control Act, 1982? 6. The short question falling for determination in this appeal relates to the (applicability of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (in short the Building Control Act). It is contended by the appellants that originally the suit for eviction, in the absence of the application of the Building Control Act of 1977, in the concerned area, was filed under the Transfer of Property Act, While the second appeal was pending in this Court, the Building Control Act of 1982 was introduced and its application was extended to the whole of Bihar, including the area where the suit property is situated. The question thus raised by the appellants was that coming into force of the Building Control Act of 1982 abrogates the application of the Transfer of Property Act and the instant suit and the appeal become infructuous and the decree inexecutable. The decisions cited were Niranjan Pal V/s. Caitanyalal Ghosh . Mohammad Jamil Ahmad V/s. Suraj Narain Prasad A.I.R. 1951 Pat. 635. and Kantilal Kachhi V/s. Smt. Ashokalata Devi A.I.R, 1977 Pat, 118. The decisions cited were Niranjan Pal V/s. Caitanyalal Ghosh . Mohammad Jamil Ahmad V/s. Suraj Narain Prasad A.I.R. 1951 Pat. 635. and Kantilal Kachhi V/s. Smt. Ashokalata Devi A.I.R, 1977 Pat, 118. Reading the aforesaid decisions together the legal situation generally emerges, (i) that the special law will override the general law (ii) that as far as the applicability of the Building Control Act and the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, both the Acts will prevail, unless there is contradiction between the two Acts, in which case the special law, that is, Building Control Act will prevail; (iii) that if a suit for eviction is pending under the Transfer of Property Act on a ground which becomes available under the Building Control Act, then the suit will continue and the legal consequence will follow, even though the special Act comes into operation, that is to say that a decree for eviction, even if passed under the Transfer of Property Act, cannot be executed except on the ground available in Sec.11 of the Building Control Act. 7. In this appeal originally eviction was sought on the grounds arising out of the Transfer of Property Act as indicated below: (i) Default in payment of rent and due from the tenant as arrears; (ii) Deterioration of the conditions of the building due to neglect or default of the tenant; (iii) Breach of the conditions of the tenancy; (iv) Termination of the tenancy; (v) personal necessity. Out of these grounds Nos. (i) and (v) above are available to the plaintiff under the Building Control Act also but the other grounds do not apply. The eviction therefore on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Transfer of Property Act cannot be affected by coming into force of the Building Control Act of 1982. 8 It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if eviction Is ordered on several grounds, even one of which becomes inapplicable due to the operation of Sec.11 of the Building Control Act of 1982, by not finding a place as a ground for eviction in that Section, the whole decree becomes inexecutable. 8 It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if eviction Is ordered on several grounds, even one of which becomes inapplicable due to the operation of Sec.11 of the Building Control Act of 1982, by not finding a place as a ground for eviction in that Section, the whole decree becomes inexecutable. In view of my aforesaid discussions and decisions there is no merit in this point because a decree for eviction can be passed even on one of the grounds mentioned in Sec.11 and if some grounds become inapplicable, the residue grounds, applicable, will suffice for execution of the decree and there is no restriction under Sec.11 of the Building Control Act in that regard. 9. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed, with costs.