Judgment R.N. Prasad, J. This application in revision is directed against the order dated 23.1.1989 passed by Munsif, Bettiah in Title Suit No. of 1988. 2. The petitioner, who was plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in the court of Munsif on 16.4.1988 against the defendant-opposite party on the ground of personal necessity. The opposite party, who was defendant in the suit, appeared in the suit on 9.5.1988 and made a prayer for time to file a written statement. The prayer was allowed. Again on 16.6.1988 a petition for time was filed on behalf of the opposite party, which was allowed. On 18.7.1988 also time was allowed to the opposite party. On 4.8.1988 the opposite party filed a written statement and also filed an affidavit disclosing the ground of his defence. On 18.8.1988 the petitioner filed an application with a prayer to pass an order in terms of Section 14 (4) of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 as the opposite-party has failed to file an affidavit disclosing the ground of contest and to obtain leave of the court on the first date of appearance on 9.5.1988. 3. The court below after hearing the parties dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner did not raise this point earlier or at the time of filing of the written statement. The court below has relied upon a decision in Dr. Hemchandra Jha v. Smt. Anjana Lal reported in 1987 BBCJ 522 : 1987 PLJR 582 for coming to the aforesaid conclusion for dismissing the petition. In the said case the suit was decreed without any objections. The tenant, who was defendant filed revision against the decree of eviction. In the revision the tenant raised the point that judgment and decree is bad in law as no affidavit disclosing grounds of contest was filed by him. The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to raise this question at this stage nor miscarriage of justice has been caused to the petitioner. In the present case the objection has been raised before the trial of the suit has been taken up and just after filing of the written statement. Thus the said decision has no application in the present case and the court below has committed error in relying upon the said decision for dismissing the petition of the petitioner. 4. In the present case the objection has been raised before the trial of the suit has been taken up and just after filing of the written statement. Thus the said decision has no application in the present case and the court below has committed error in relying upon the said decision for dismissing the petition of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that non-compliance of Sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as B.B.C. Act) Is fatal and the court is bound to pass an order in terms of Sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act. In support of the contention learned counsel relied upon a decision in Sobrai Prasad v. Shrimati Basanti Devi reported in 1991 B.B.C.J. 621. In the said decision it has been held that not accepting the written statement on the ground that no leave was prayed for at the first instance by the trial courts not at all illegal and accordingly the revision was dismissed. 5. No body appears on behalf of the opposite party. 6. From a perusal of Sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act itself it is obvious that in a case where the suit is filed on the ground of personal necessity the defendant is required to file affidavit disclosing the grounds of contest and obtain leave of the court on the date of appearance itself. The provision appears to be mandatory and its non-compliance is fatal. Thus I am of the view that in case of non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions the suit has to be decided in terms of Sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.