NAGENDRA RAI, J.

1. :-

The defendants-tenants have filed the present revision application against the order dated 11-1-1988 passed by Munsif, Ist Court, Samastipur in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1987 by which he has rejected the application of the petitioners under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 29-4-1987 passed in Title Suit No. 1 of 1987 on the ground that the aforesaid application was not maintainable in view of the specific provisions contained in S. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

2 Primary question for determination in the present case is as to what is the remedy available in law to a tenant to challenge an order of eviction passed against him under S. 14(4) of the Act on the ground that the said order was passed without service of summons on him for his appearance.

3. As the point involved is a pure question of law, a detailed factual background is not necessary in this case. The original plaintiff opposite party (now dead and his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted) had filed suit for eviction on 12-1-1987 against the petitioners from the suit premises which is a shop situate in Mohalla Kasbe Aahar, P. S. Tajpur, District Samastipur on the ground of personal necessity. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendants were inducted tenants of the premises on the monthly rental of Rs. 111.00. He wanted the suit premises for starting a business for his son. He requested the defendants to vacate the premises but they refused, hence the suit for eviction.

4. Summonses were issued to the petitioners both in ordinary course as well as by registered post with acknowledgement due. Summonses sent in ordinary course are alleged to have been served upon the petitioners who after knowing the contents of the same, refused to sign the same. The summonses sent by registered post were returned by the postal peon with a report that no men of such names could be traced out at the place mentioned in the envelopes. The Court treated the summonses sent in ordinary course to have been served upon the petitioners and thereafter, as the petitioners did not appear to contest the suit, an ex parte decree dated 29-4-1987 for eviction against the petitioners was passed. On 14-5-1987 the plaintiff filed a petition for the amendment of the ex parte order dated 29-4-1987 on the ground that no specific date was given in the decree by which the defendants were directed to vacate the suit premises and thereafter the Court by order dated 25-5-1987 amended the decree and directed the defendants-petitioners to vacate the premises within thirty days from the date of the order of the amendment.

5. According to the case of the petitioners, on 28-4-1987 they came to know that some suit had been filed against them in which 29-4-1987 was notified as the next date. Petitioner No. 1 made an enquiry about the present case and thereafter after having come to know about the filing of the present suit filed Vakalatnama in the suit on 29-4-1987 itself but he was informed that on the same day an ex parte decree had been already passed. Thereafter, he filed a petition for recalling the aforesaid ex parte decree but the Court below passed order that the aforesaid petition should be kept on the record. Thereafter, he filed the present application for setting aside the ex parte decree stating therein that they were not the tenants of the suit premises and the same belongs to them. No summons either in ordinary course or by registered post was served upon them. The report submitted by the peon with regard to the service of summons on them in ordinary course was a false one as no summonses have ever been served upon them which are said to have been refused by them. An ex parte decree has been obtained by the plaintiff against them fraudulently by suppressing the summ