( 1 ) TENANT's application for leave to defend was refused under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. He is, therefore, before me in this revision.

( 2 ) ON 7-3-1984, the tenant-petitioner was served with summons in terms of Sub-S. (1) of S. 23-C of the aforesaid Act and within fifteen days, namely, on 15-3-1984, he did file his application, expressing his intention to defend landlord's application for eviction. The only lacuna by which he was hit by the trial Court was absence of the affidavit. The Rent Controlling Authority did not allow any opportunity to the tenant to fill up the lacuna and dismissed the application summarily on the ground that the application was not accompanied by an affidavit.

( 3 ) SHRI Vijay Yogi, learned Counsel, appearing for the non-petitioner-landlord, vocally submits that the provisions of Sub-S. (1) of S. 23-C are mandatory. Indeed, they are so, but to what extent. The intention of the Legislature, making provision for tenant to be given leave to defend proceedings, must be understood and appreciated and accorded primacy. In Alok Awasthi's case (Civil Revision No. 127/85, decided on 5-9-1985 : (reported in 1986 MPRCJ 19)