The court has the discretion to grant or refuse leave to contest a suit under section 14(4) of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982. However, this discretion must be exercised judicially and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

S. B. Sinha, J.

This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 15.4.1988 passed by Shri S. N. Gupta Sub-Judge I, Munger whereby and whereunder the learned court below in purported exercise of its power conferred upon him under section 14(4) of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 refused to grant leave to the petitioner to contest the suit and passed a consequent decree in favour of the plaintiffs opposite parties and against the defendant petitioner.

2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed two suits against the petitioner one being Eviction suit No. 1 of 1984 which was in relation to the premises described in Schedule I of the plaint and for realisation of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 7500/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and another suit being Eviction suit No.2 of 1984 wherein the plaintiff sought for a decree for eviction of the petitioner from half portion of another house on the same ground as well as for realisation of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.12,2501-

3. In this civil revision application the decree for eviction passed in eviction suit No.1 of 1984 is in question.

4. In the said suit the plaintiffs inter alia claimed decree in terms of section 11 (1) (e) of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 purported to be on the ground in view of that the lease, on the basis whereof the defendant petitioner was put in possession being for a period 1.9.1980 to 31.12.1983, the plaintiffs have become entitled to a decree for eviction on the expiry of the said period. The petitioner in view of the filing of the suit filed an affidavit in terms of subsection 3 of section 14 of the Act stating therein the grounds on the basis whereof he sought the leave of the court to contest the suit. A copy of the said affidavit is contained in Annexure 1 to the application.

5. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 15.4.1985 it appears that the learned court below has taken into consideration are (sic) of the grounds mentioned in the affidavit dated 4.1,1985 filed by the defendant petitioner to the effect that be had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiff and defendant. However, the learned court below purported to have held that no where the petitioner stated, that he did not execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and the purported registered Kirayanama allegedly executed in his favour does not bear his signature or his left thumb, impression.

6. According to the learned court below the grounds taken by the petitioner in the said affidavit are not such which can entitle the petitioner to obtain the leave of the court to contest the suit. The petitioner in the aforementioned affidavit stated as follows ;-

(a) That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant.

(b) That the alleged Kiryanama purported to have been executed by the defendant is forged and fabricated by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit. Further the defendant has not executed any Kiryanama for the fixed terms in favour of the plaintiff on l.9.1980.

(c) That the story as propounded by the plaintiff that this defendant has executed a deed of sale on 30.8.1980 in favour of the plaintiff for the consideration of Rs. 11000/- for the suit premises is baseless, false and fabricated.

(d) That the value of the suit premises being not Jess than Rs. one Lack according to the market value of the same, the question of executing the said sale deed dated 30.8.1980 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff does not arise.

(e) That the plaintiff has not acquired any title or possession over the suit premises to bring this suit of eviction against the defendant."

7. From the aforementioned affidavit it is evident that the defendant petitioner had questioned the genuineness of the sale deed as also the Kirayanama. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the learned court below ought to have besto