S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

The petitioner, is defendant tenant in the court below. The opposite parties are the Plaintiffs-landlords in the court below. The petitioner has fled the present Civil Revision application against the order dated 12th December, passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Dumka in Title Eviction Suit No.23 of 1993, by which the leave petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(4) of the B.B.C Act has been rejected on the ground that the same has not been filed by the petitioner on the date of first appearance.

2. The brief fact of the case lies in a narrorw compass, as stated below:

The Petitioner, as stated above, is the tenant, whereas the plaintiffs opposite parties are the landlord. The plaintiffs opposite parties filed Title Eviction Suit No. 23 of 1993 under Section 14 of B.B.C. Act, on the ground of personal necessity. Notice was issued to the petitioner-defendant. Immediately after the notice the petitioner-defendant appeared on 15th December, 1993 and filed a time petition with a prayer to file leave petition on 10th January, 1994. The time petiton was allowed. The case was fixed for 10th January, 1994.

On 10th January, 1994, the defendant-petitioner again prayed for time to file such petition. This was objected by the plaintiffs opposite parties on the ground that the case is to be decided under Section 14 of the B. B. C. Act and the defendant-petitioner having not filed the petition for leave to contest on the first dated of appearance, the said defendant is precluded from filling such petition. The case was adjourned to 31st January 1994 to hear on the point. On 31st January, 1994 , the leave petition to oppose the suit was filed by the defendant - partition to oppose the suit was filed by the defendant-petitioner and prayed for grant of leave. The case was adjourned to 17th February, 1994.

Thereafter, the case was adjourned for different dates, though both the parties were present and ultimately by impugned order dated 12th December, 1994, the petition filed by the defendant-petitioner on 31st of Jaunary,1994 for grant of leave to contest the suit was rejected on the ground that the said petition has not been filed by the petitioner on the first date of appearance i.e. on 15th December, 1993.

3. Counsel for the petitoner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Mahto Vs, Hari Narayan Mahto, reported in 1989 PLJR 489 and submitted that in terms of Section 14(4) of the B.B.C Act, it was not necessary for filing portion for leave to contest the suit on. the very first date of appearance, particularly when he prayed for grant of time from the court, which was granted in his favour It was submitted on behalf of the petitoner that in fact, the petition for leave to contest the suit was filed by the petitioner on 31st January, 1994 i.e. on the third date from the date of appearance and the same should have been accepted by the court below. Thereby he challenges the impugned order.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Karabin Ba ptist Gnerunbic Baptist Vs . Shri Gauri Shankar Prasad, reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 495 According to the counsel for the opposite parties, in terms of sanction 14(4) of the B.B.C. Act, it was mandatory on the part of the defendant petitoner to file leave to contest the suit on the first date of appearance i.e. on 15th of December, 1993, Such Petition having not been filled by the defendant petitioner, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the court below rejecting the petiton filed by the defendant petitioner for such leave to contest the suit, which was filled on the third date, from the date of appearance.

5. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the resent case, it is necessary to go through the exact provion of Section 14(4) of the B.B.C. Act., The said provision reads as follows:

"14 (4) : The tanant on whom summons is duly served (whether by ordinary mail or by regist