Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. Tha defendants of a suit, filed by the plaintiffs opposite party Under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) are the petitioners, who challenge an order refusing to grant them leave. 2. The relevant facts are short and simple. Earlier against an order dated 1-8-1985 of the trial court refusing to grant leave to them Under Sec. 14 of the Act to contest the suit in question, the petitioners had come up before this Court in Civil Revision No. 1345 of 1985. The said civil revision application was dismissed on its merit after hearing the petitioners and the opposite party by the judgment and order dated 14-7-1987. it was held that the court below had not committed any error in refusing to grant leave as the petitioners had not rebutted the allegations mentioned by the opposite party for their eviction in the plaint. The said judgment of this Court admittedly became final inasmuch as the petitioners did not challenge the same before the Supreme Court through Special Leave application and/or otherwise. Thereafter the petitioners again applied for grant of leave on the ground that the plaintiff-opposite party started further construction of a room in January, 1986 which was completed and let out since 11-3-1986. The prayer was opposed by the opposite party on facts and law both. They asserted that the fact is incorrect and the prayer, in view of rejection of the grant of leave earlier is not permissible. By the order impugned, as already stated, the petitioners prayer was disallowed on the ground that the alleged developments were of the period during which civil revision was pet ding and their plea is also not acceptable on facts. 3. Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the court below has erred in law in not granting leave in view of the fact that due to subsequent events the petitioners were entitled to pray afresh for grant of leave. 4. Mr. Rajan, learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the judgment and order dated 14-7-1987 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1345 of 1985, referred to above, is binding on the petitioners as also before this Court and operates as res judicata. 4. Mr. Rajan, learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the judgment and order dated 14-7-1987 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1345 of 1985, referred to above, is binding on the petitioners as also before this Court and operates as res judicata. It is not open for the petitioners to pray afresh for grant of leave inasmuch as Sec. 14 of the Act does not contemplate for grant of fresh leave after rejection of an earlier one. 5. I find substance in the argument of Mr. Rajan Sec. 14, of the Act does not clothe jurisdiction in the trial court to grant another leave after rejection of an earlier one and affirmance of that order by this Court. The earlier order dated 1-8-1985 had merged, on the principle of merger, in the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1345 of 1985. For the said reason the petitioners bad no right to make a fresh application for grant of leave before the trial court. Besides, the plea, if at all, should have been taken in the earlier revision which was disposed of in July, 1987, I do not find any error in disbelieving by the court below of the case of lack of knowledge of the alleged construction also by the trial court. For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the view that the court below has not comimtted any error of law muchless any jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned. 6. This civil revision application is thus devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed, but, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.