Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. This civil revision under Sec.14 (8) of the Bihar buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)Control Act, 1982 (the Act in short)is by the plaintiffs. They filed suit for eviction of the defendants-opposite party on the ground of personal necessity. The suit has been decreed but only with respect to part of the premises. The point for consideration is whether this civil revision, at the instance of the plaintiffs, is maintainable. 2. Section 14 or the Act provides for special procedure for disposal of suits for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and expiry of the period of lease/tenancy. Sub-section (8) thereof bars appeal against the order for recovery of possession made in accordance with the special procedure. The proviso to sub-section (8), however, provides that on an application made within 60 days of the date of order of eviction, the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order under this Section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. It is obvious that the remedy provided under the proviso is available only to tenants against whom order of eviction has been made. In other words, while no appeal against order for recovery of possession lies, an aggrieved tenant may file an application to the High Court against the order of eviction. A controversy arose as to the rights of the plaintiff-landlord whose suit for eviction is dismissed. The controversy stands settled by Full bench decision of this court in Md. Zainul Ansari V/s. Md. Khalil, 1990 (2)PLJR 378 ; 1990 (2) BLJ 601. This court held that the provisions of Section 14 (8) do not take away the landlords right of appeal available to him under Sec.96 or Sec.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners on the question of maintainability of the civil revision is that the plaintiffs suit having been decreed, the appeal against such decree would not be maintainable and, therefore, they have no other remedy than to file revision application in this court. The submission, in my opinion, is wholly misconceived. 4. A suit can be decreed in part, which means that the suit is dismissed in relation to other part. The submission, in my opinion, is wholly misconceived. 4. A suit can be decreed in part, which means that the suit is dismissed in relation to other part. In such a situation, it is open to both the parties to file appeals against parts of the decrees to the extent they are dissatisfied. The situation will not be different in the context of suits which have been tried according to special procedures laid down under Sec.14 of the Act. While the plaintiffs can appeal against the decree to the extent his claim has been disallowed, the tenant also can prefer revision to the extent order for recovery of possession has been made. There should not be any doubt that when the landlord files suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, and the court passes decree of partial eviction, the suit cannot be said to be decreed as a whole. His remedy by way of appeal under Section 96/100 of the Code against part of the decree by which entire eviction is disallowed, is not affected. 5. Following the decision of the full Bench in the case of Md. Zainul ansari (supra) and a Bench decision in jai Prakash Jalana V/s. Rambilas Madan gopal, 1991 (2) PLJR (sic) there is no room for doubt that Sec.14 (8) of the Act does not contemplate filing of any revision at the instance of the landlord at all. Only an appeal is maintainable at the instance of the landlord- whether the suit has been dismissed in whole or part. Reference may be made to the observations in Paragraph 118 of the judgment in Jai Prakash jalan (supra ). In that case it has further been held that since revision at the instance of landlord under S.14 (8) is not contemplated, a revision under S.115 of the Code also will not be applicable in view of the proviso appended to that Section, which bars revision against orders which are appealable. 6. Before I conclude, I may state, that in course of hearing of the case it transpired that the petitioners have already filed title appeal in the court below. It was stated that the present revision has been filed in this court by way of abundant caution. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal already filed by the petitioners must be held to be maintainable. It was stated that the present revision has been filed in this court by way of abundant caution. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal already filed by the petitioners must be held to be maintainable. The Court below will decide the same in accordance with law. In the above premises, this civil revision is dismissed as not mainthetainable. Revision Dismissed.