JUDGMENT S. Ali Ahmad, J.-The plaintiffs opposite parties filed a suit giving rise to this application for eviction of the defendant petitioner. The petitioner appeared on 21.8.1990 and filed his written statement denying the relationship of land-lord and tenant and also denying the assertions of the plaintiffs opposite party that they required suit premises for their personal necessity. Section 14 (4) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, enjoins upon the defendant to file an affidavit stating the grounds on which he proposes to contest the claim of the plaintiff. In case the court is satisfied that a triable case, is made out in the affidavit the leave is to be granted. Thereafter the petitioner can file written statement. Since the petitioner had filed the written statement without taking leave of the Court, therefore, the plaintiff-opposite party filed an application on 28.8.1990 stating that no leave has been granted to the petitioner to contest the case and as such the suit may be disposed of as if the defendant is not contesting the claim An affidavit was filed on the same day on behalf of the petitioner stating, inta alia, that there was no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties and that the plaintiff opposite party did not require the suit premises in good faith on account of his personal necessity. The court below refused to grant lea ye to the defendant petitioner to contest the case on the ground that no triable case has been made out. That order is under challenge. 2. Mr. Chandramauli Kumar Prasad says that the defendant in his affidavit had specifically stated that there was no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties and the plaintiff did not require the suit premises in good 1aith on account of his personal necessity. He says that in case the defendant proved anyone of his two pleas then the suit could not be decreed. He, therefore, says that the court below acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to grant leave to the petitioner to contest the suit. He says that in case the defendant proved anyone of his two pleas then the suit could not be decreed. He, therefore, says that the court below acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to grant leave to the petitioner to contest the suit. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, says that the petitioner had filed his written statement without obtaining the leave of the court and as such there was violation of section 14 (4) of the Act and he says that on this account the court has rightly refused to grant leave to the petitioner. 3. The court below was certainly wrong in refusing to grant leave to the petitioner on the ground that no triable case has been made out in the affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly urged that in case it was established that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for his own occupation in good faith then the suit had to be dismissed. The plea, therefore, made in the affidavit has made out a triable case. The argument of learned counsel for the opposite party also has no substance. The written statement filed on 21.8.90 could very well have been ignored and the petitioner could have been directed to file another written statement within the prescribed time after granting leave to the petitioner. I accordingly allow this application, set aside the impugned order and grant leave to the petitioner to contest the suit. Section 14 (6) of the Act says that the written statement should be filed within fifteen days after grant of leave to contest the suit. But the courts are closing down for Puja-vacation from the next week. I therefore, direct that the petitioner should file his written statement by 22nd of November, when courts re-open after Puja vacation.