JUDGMENT : S.K. Jha, J. The defendants-benefit were the petitioners in the suit for ejectment under the summary procedure as prescribed in section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (Bihar Act 4 of 1983) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By the impugned ORDER :dated 15th July, 1986 the trial court has decreed the suit and the petitioners have been directed to vacate the suit premises and to give vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff-opposite parties within thirty days from the date of the ORDER :failing which they shall be evicted from the suit premises from the process of the law. 2. The only point canvassed at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners was that the decree passed by the court below is not in accordance with law as it is not in accordance with section 14 (4) of the Act. The point has been taken note of merely to be rejected. 3. Only a couple of relevant facts byway of background has to be narrated. Admittedly, according to learned counsel for the petitioners the latter has been a tenant in the premises in question for more than 25 years. In this case summonses were issued upon the petitioners in due course through the nazarat as well as through registered post. From 21.5.85 the suit was adjourned to 5.6.86 and then again to 23.6.86 On the last mentioned date the plaintiff-opposite parties filed a petition under ORDER :4 rule 19 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that summons were sent to the defendants by registered post with acknowledgment due but the, postal acknowledgments have not received' back although more than 30 days had passed and as such the suit was prayed to be posted on 7.7.86 for exparte hearing. The court having' considered the service of notice to be a valid one ORDER :ed that the suit be posted on 7.7.80 for exparte hearing. On 7.7.86 again it was adjourned to 11.7.86 for exparte hearing. On that date the petitioners filed a petition praying for time to file a written statement but they did not file any affidavit stating the grounds on which they sought to make such contest and, did not obtain the leave of the court. On 7.7.86 again it was adjourned to 11.7.86 for exparte hearing. On that date the petitioners filed a petition praying for time to file a written statement but they did not file any affidavit stating the grounds on which they sought to make such contest and, did not obtain the leave of the court. Nonetheless by an ORDER :dated 15.7.86 at the instance of the petitioners they were given time to file a written statement and the ORDER :setting down the case for exparte hearing was recalled. Admittedly no affidavit has yet been filed. In this background I have to consider the provisions mandated by sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Act which reads in these terms:- "14 (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 obtains 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." 4. The necessary ingredients of section 14 (4) of the Act; (1) Summons must have been duly served on the tenant; (2) Unless the tenant files affidavit stating ground on which he seeks to make contest to the prayer for eviction his written statement shall not be entertained; (3) If he has filed an affidavit with the written statement or even before it his written statement shall be entertained; and (4) In the absence of such an affidavit the, landlord shall be entitled to an ORDER :for eviction. As has already been observed above and it needs reiteration that, summons in this case was duly served as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, again no affidavit has yet been filed stating the grounds on which the petitioners seek to contest the prayer for eviction nor have they obtained the leave from the court in the behalf. As has already been observed above and it needs reiteration that, summons in this case was duly served as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, again no affidavit has yet been filed stating the grounds on which the petitioners seek to contest the prayer for eviction nor have they obtained the leave from the court in the behalf. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier ORDER :' for setting down the case for exparte hearing was recalled' by the ORDER :dated 15.5.1986, the most essential ingredient of subsection (4) of section 14 of the, Act-mandatory in character was not fulfilled. There may be other point against the petitioners but I do not want to detain myself over those question. On the admitted position, therefore, the impugned ORDER :suffers from no legal infirmity whatsoever and the suit has been rightly decreed. 5. This application accordingly fails but in the circumstances of the case without any costs. In spite of the fact that the petitioners have already remained in the premises as tenant for more than 25 years now and the landlords have filed the suit on the ground of their personal necessity learned counsel for the petitioners sought an indulgence from this Court ex debito justice. I would prefer to counter act to such submission by using the expression that granting any indulgence in this case will amount not to sub-serve the ends of justice but to abuse the processes of the court. I have, therefore, by way of indulgence not made any ORDER :as to costs, although it was one of those cases in which exemplary costs should have been awarded against the petitioners. This is Portia's justice given to the petitioners Shylock. Application dismissed.