Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. In terms of sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (In short "the Act"), the present revision application has been filed by the "tenant" who has been ordered to be evicted. 2. Heard both the parties. 3. At the time of admission, the Stamp Reporter had objected to the filing of revision as in its opinion, an appeal lay from the order of eviction. When the matter was taken up under the heading "For Orders", prior to admission in view of a statement in the judgment that the suit was for eviction on ground of personal necessity, this Court held that revision was maintainable. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has raised objection as to the maintainability. I am afraid, it is not open to this Court to go into this question at this stage even though the earlier order was passed in absence of the opposite party. 4. The property belongs to Hatua Raj. The original defendant was an employee. He was dismissed from service of Hathua Raj and as he was not vacating the premises thereafter which premises was required for other employees, the present suit was instituted in the year, 1986 (twenty years back). In course of the proceedings, the defendant-tenant ex-employee died. The present petitioners, who are the son, wife and daughters of the original defendant were substituted. On the plaint having been filed, summons were issued. Defendants had appeared. Defendants filed their written statement. They did not seek leave to defend. After filing of written statement, issues were framed. Parties led their evidences in detail. Evidences were recorded also in detail. Thereafter, the judgment impugned was delivered. In the judgment impugned, it has been held that the plaintiff cannot be said to be requiring the premises for personal necessity as finding accommodation for other employee cannot be said to be personal necessity but the Court found that the premises had been occupied by the original defendant in the status of an employee, the Court found that he had been dismissed as such in terms of sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act, the defendants or their successor-in-interest occupying the premises were liable to be evicted. There is no dispute that the present petitioners came in occupation of the premises through their father who came in occupation of the premises as an employee. 11(1)(a) of the Act, the defendants or their successor-in-interest occupying the premises were liable to be evicted. There is no dispute that the present petitioners came in occupation of the premises through their father who came in occupation of the premises as an employee. The judgment aforesaid is assailed primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the valuation was fixed at Rs. 100.00 which was less than the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, an original Court of superior jurisdiction heard the matter rather than the Court within whose pecuniary jurisdiction, the case lays. Instead of Munsif hearing the suit, the Sub Judge heard the suit. The second ground is that as the suit was based on seeking eviction on grounds of personal necessity as well, it was tried in the special procedure as envisaged u/s. 14 of the Act. The Court found no personal necessity and yet granted decree for eviction in terms of sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act. A proceeding for eviction in relation to Section 11(1)(a) of the Act can be conducted only under the general provisions of conducting suit as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure (In short "the Code"). Reliance for this has been placed on 1990 BBCJ 334 Puran Rai and Ors. V/s. Sardar Sohan Singh wherein under similar facts, the Court found that conducting proceedings in a special manner which was applicable only to a case under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act and passing an order of eviction with reference to Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act, the Court acts without jurisdiction and the judgment and decree is vitiated. 5. I have heard the parties and perused the original suit records. So far as the first point is concerned, it is well established that a Court of superior jurisdiction can try suits and such trial cannot be held to be vitiated as in the case where a Court of inferior jurisdiction tries a suit which is cognizable only by a superior Court. On this short premise, the first contention of the counsel for the petitioners is rejected. 6. So far as the second contention is concerned, the point, as raised by the petitioners, is well taken but the judgment would have applied if the facts were similar. On this short premise, the first contention of the counsel for the petitioners is rejected. 6. So far as the second contention is concerned, the point, as raised by the petitioners, is well taken but the judgment would have applied if the facts were similar. I have examined the entire suit records and have found that the special procedure has not been followed rather a general trial, as contemplated under the Code, has been conducted. There was no leave obtained to defend. In proceedings under Small Causes Court, issues are not framed nor evidence is taken and recorded in detail. The only gist of evidence is recorded. In the present case, the suit records would reveal that neither leave to defend was taken. On the contrary, written statement was filed straightway followed by framing of issue and detailed trial with detailed recording of evidence. This was a procedure under the general provisions of the Code and it is because of this apparently that the office took the objection as to maintainability of the revision application. The trial having been conducted under the general provisions, the judgment relied by the petitioners absolutely has no application. Therefore, there is no Infirmity in the trial even otherwise in view of sec. 99 of the Code, the petitioners being unable to show that he was prejudiced in any manner, the judgment and decree does not stand vitiated. There being no other point or issue raised. 7. I find no merit in this revision application and it is dismissed, accordingly. 8. The stay granted earlier stands automatically vacated.