JUDGMENT B.P. Jha, J. This civil revision petition is against an order dated 25th January, 1986. 2. By the impugned order, the court rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') on the ground that it is not maintainable. The court was of opinion that in view of section 14 (1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') a civil revision will lie against final order passed under section 14 (8) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of a section 14 (7) of the Act, the' procedure as laid down under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Small Court Act' Act, will be applicable to the trial of eviction case falling under section 11 (1) (c) and (e) of the Act. 4. It is relevant to quote section 14 (l) the of the Act, which rum as follows:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908(V of 1908) or any other law; the Court while hearing a suit under this section shall follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence." 5 It is also relevant to quote section 17 of the Small Courts Act, which runs as follows :- "(1) The procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, shall, save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits: Provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree-passed exparte or for a review of judgment shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed. (2) Where a person has become liable as surety under the proviso to sub-section (1), the security may be realised in manner provided by section 145 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 " 6 On a perusal of section 17 of the Small Cause Court Act, it is clear an aggrieved party can file petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside an ex parte decree. Hence, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to file a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party contends that it is not an ex party decree in the sense of Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code. To this extent, learned counsel for the opposite party is correct. The procedure for ex party hearing has been laid down under Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code. 8. In the present case, the petitioner did not appear in spite of service of summons, Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the correct ness of this finding. 9 It has been laid down under section 14 (4) of the Act, that if a tenant does not appear on the service of summons-whether by ordinary mail or registered post-then the case will be heard and disposed of on the basis of the allegations in the plaint. 10. For harmonious construction of section 14 (4) and section 14 (7) of the Act, the irresistible conclusion is that the Court is required to follow the procedure laid down under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as well as the procedure as laid down under section 14 (4) of the Act. If it is so, then the defendant-tenant has a right to filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. If it is, so the court in law erred in holding that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code is not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party contends that after final judgment the petitioner ought to have moved civil Revision under section 14 (8) of the Act, It is true that the petitioner counsel have moved a civil revision under section 14 (8) of the Act, but the petitioner is not estopped from filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. In my opinion, it can be done by the petitioner and the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code is maintainable. 12. It is also contended by learned counsel for the opposite party that if a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code is rejected, then an appeal will lie under Order 43 Rule 1 If an petition under or 9 R. 13 is rejected on merit, then certainly an appeal will lie under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of the Code, but, in the present case the petition was summarily rejected petition holding that it is not maintainable and therefore, it was not appealable. 13. In the result, the petition is allowed, the order dated 25th January, 1986, is set aside and the court below is directed to hear the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. Application allowed.