This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 29.8.1985 passed in Eviction Suit No. 36 of 1984 by the 1st Munsif, Darbhanga decreeing the suit of the plaintiff under section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). Notices were issued to the opposite parties in the admission mater and the opposite parties have appeared through Mr. Chunni Lal, Advocate. Heard Mr. Shreenath Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Chunni Lal for the opposite parties and this application in being disposed of at the admission stage.

2. The plaintiff opposite parties had filed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. According to the plaintiff’s case the plaintiff’s alongwith her three sons are at present residing in a rented house. The two sons of the plaintiff are running their whole sale business in a rented house in Mohalla Gullobara and her third son Anil Kumar Daruka has to be settled in some other business as he is sitting idle. The defendant-petitioner has his own house in Mohalla Saudagar and has also a shop in the market-year Shivdhara. An affidavit was filed under section 14 of the Act, by the defendant-petitioner for grant of leave to contest the suit. Section 14 of the Act, lays down a special procedure for disposal of cases of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 14, which are relevant for the purpose of this case read as follows:-

“(4) The tenant on whom summons is duly served (whether by ordinary mail or by registered post) shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the ground on which he seeks to make such contest and obtained leave from the Court as hereinafter provided; and in default of the appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the suit for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.

(5) The court shall give to the tenant leave to contest the suit if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction on the grounds specified in clauses (c) and (e) of sub-section (1) of section 11,

(6) When leave is granted to the tenant to contest the suit, the latter may, within fifteen days from the date of the order, pray after filing the requisite Court fee, required for a written statement that the affidavit may be treated as the written statement or if he so chooses to file a separate written statement he may do so within fifteen days of the grant of leave to contest the suit and if he does not file the written statement within the period he shall not be allowed to do so later. The Court shall thereafter commence the hearing of the suit as early as practicable”.

3. The matter was taken up by the Court below and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case it refused to grant leave to the defendant petitioner to contest the suit as in its opinion the plaintiff requires the suit premises for personal use reasonably and in good faith. The court below has directed the defendant-petitioner to vacate the suit premises within a month.

4. Mr. Shreenath Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration some of the statements made on behalf of the defendant-petitioner in his affidavit and has, therefore, erred in refusing to grant leave to the defendant-petitioner. Annexure 1 to this Civil revision application is the copy of the affidavit fled on behalf of the defendant-petitioner before the court below for leave to contest the suit. It was stated in his affidavit that late Narain Prasad Daruka who was the owner of the land on which the building occupied by the defendant-petitioner stands, leased out the said Parti land to t