ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner, is defendant tenant in the court below. The opposite parties are the Plaintiffs-landlords in the court below. The petitioner has fled the present Civil Revision application against the order dated 12th December, passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Dumka in Title Eviction Suit No.23 of 1993, by which the leave petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(4) of the B.B.C Act has been rejected on the ground that the same has not been filed by the petitioner on the date of first appearance. 2. The brief fact of the case lies in a narrorw compass, as stated below: The Petitioner, as stated above, is the tenant, whereas the plaintiffs opposite parties are the landlord. The plaintiffs opposite parties filed Title Eviction Suit No. 23 of 1993 under Section 14 of B.B.C. Act, on the ground of personal necessity. Notice was issued to the petitioner-defendant. Immediately after the notice the petitioner-defendant appeared on 15th December, 1993 and filed a time petition with a prayer to file leave petition on 10th January, 1994. The time petiton was allowed. The case was fixed for 10th January, 1994. On 10th January, 1994, the defendant-petitioner again prayed for time to file such petition. This was objected by the plaintiffs opposite parties on the ground that the case is to be decided under Section 14 of the B. B. C. Act and the defendant-petitioner having not filed the petition for leave to contest on the first dated of appearance, the said defendant is precluded from filling such petition. The case was adjourned to 31st January 1994 to hear on the point. On 31st January, 1994 , the leave petition to oppose the suit was filed by the defendant - partition to oppose the suit was filed by the defendant-petitioner and prayed for grant of leave. The case was adjourned to 17th February, 1994. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for different dates, though both the parties were present and ultimately by impugned order dated 12th December, 1994, the petition filed by the defendant-petitioner on 31st of Jaunary,1994 for grant of leave to contest the suit was rejected on the ground that the said petition has not been filed by the petitioner on the first date of appearance i.e. on 15th December, 1993. 3. 3. Counsel for the petitoner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Mahto Vs, Hari Narayan Mahto, reported in 1989 PLJR 489 and submitted that in terms of Section 14(4) of the B.B.C Act, it was not necessary for filing portion for leave to contest the suit on. the very first date of appearance, particularly when he prayed for grant of time from the court, which was granted in his favour It was submitted on behalf of the petitoner that in fact, the petition for leave to contest the suit was filed by the petitioner on 31st January, 1994 i.e. on the third date from the date of appearance and the same should have been accepted by the court below. Thereby he challenges the impugned order. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Karabin Ba ptist Gnerunbic Baptist Vs . Shri Gauri Shankar Prasad, reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 495 According to the counsel for the opposite parties, in terms of sanction 14(4) of the B.B.C. Act, it was mandatory on the part of the defendant petitoner to file leave to contest the suit on the first date of appearance i.e. on 15th of December, 1993, Such Petition having not been filled by the defendant petitioner, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the court below rejecting the petiton filed by the defendant petitioner for such leave to contest the suit, which was filled on the third date, from the date of appearance. 5. 5. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the resent case, it is necessary to go through the exact provion of Section 14(4) of the B.B.C. Act., The said provision reads as follows: "14 (4) : The tanant on whom summons is duly served (whether by ordinary mail or by registered post) shall not contest the prayer for evoction 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 dafault of the appearances in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the suit for eviotion shall be deemed to be admitted by the tanant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviotion on the ground aforesaid." 6. From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is manifest and clear that on specific thme limit has been framed there under. A Bench of this Court in the case of Basudev Prasad Vs. Raghunath Prasad, as reported in 1987 BBCJ 811 , held as follows: "By the impugned order, the court rejected the leave application on the ground that it was not filed on 9.1.1985, the first day of appearance. "The Court rejected the leave application filed under Section 14(4) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviotion) Control Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act") on the ground that as it was not filed on 9.1.1985. In my opinion, the court erred in holding so. Section 14(4) of the Act does not provide that the defendant- tenant is required to file petition on the date of his first appearance. He can file leave application on subsecuent date as well. In my opinion the group d given by the court below is not substantiated by Section 14(4) of the Act. 7. The matter was examined by another Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Mahto Vs Hari Narayan Mahto as reported in 1989 PLJR 489, where in this Court gave its finding, as follow: "Section 14(4) mandates that the tenant on whom, the summon is duly served shall not contest the prayer for eviotion from the premises unless he files an affidavit and obtain leave from the court as herein after provided. All that the statute in express term stipulates is that the tenant shall be deemed to have accepted the claim of the landlord and would be liable to eviotion There is a great difference between the words 'unless' and 'simultaneously' All that the statue contemplates is that before the tenant is entitled to file a written statement he must file an affidavit stating the ground for contesting the eviction and he must obtain leave from the court to contest the suit. That is a prerequisite. But It does not men that in time of the very moment of the apperance of the tenant defednat. The filling of the affidavit and obtaing of leave from the court must precede the filling of the written statement and contesting the suit and not that these two conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously with the very first appliance of the tenant-defendant. Taking and contrary view of the matter would be doing violence to the violence to the language of the legislative the view which has been taken by court below be accepted as correct then there was on difficulty in the way of the legislature of the draftsman in saying so in categorical terms that the tenant on whom sammons is truly served shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he "simultaneously" files an application. To me at least it does not stand to reason as to how on the very moment of apperarace the tenant defendant should be prepared with the affidavit constraining the grounds. xxx xxx xxx There is no limitation preserbibed for filling of the affidavit fort obtaining leave from the court. The absence of the matter is that these two conditions must proceed the filling of the written statement. In the present case they have preceded and not only that-the court has accepted the affidavit, granted the leave and accepted the written statement also on a subsequent date and fix a date for settlement of issue. Even for the sake of academic discussion, if it be assumed that the statute mandates is simultaneous if not contemporaneous filing of the affidavit and obtaining the leave that is a duty fastened upon the court by the state and court has been given the right to accept oil or to reject it. Even for the sake of academic discussion, if it be assumed that the statute mandates is simultaneous if not contemporaneous filing of the affidavit and obtaining the leave that is a duty fastened upon the court by the state and court has been given the right to accept oil or to reject it. Having accepted it, it must be demed that the occult has waived its right and the plaintiff landlord in whose presence the entire proceedings were conducted has acquiesced in the matter and has waived nay suchtechnial formalities. But to take the line of least resistance. I may merely in the passing refer to the decision of the court in the case of Ajit Kumar Sinha Vs Anil Kumar Yadav and ors. ( 1985 BBCJ 113 1985 PLJR 904) in which it has been laid down categorically that under Section 14 of the court has the power and the right to extend the period for filling the written statement after leave to contest the suit is granted If the court has power to extend period for filling the written statemnt it has as much power to extend the time for the affidavit and obtaing the leave of the court" Xxx xxx xxx 8. In the case of Umesh Ram and another Vs. Satrughan Prasad and others, as reported in 1987 PLJR 62, it was not filed on the first date and even on the subsequent date Time was granted and ultimately the case was fixed for exparte hearing and ultimately the order of ex - parte hearing was also recalled, In that case, subsequently also no written statement was filed. While discussing the Section 14(4) of the B.B.C. Act, the Court held, as follows: '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 eviotion 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 enterined; and (4) In the absence of such and affidavit the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviotion." 9. From the plain reading of the aforesaid judgement of this Court, it is manifegi and clear that it is not necessary to file the leave to contest the appeal on the very first date of appearance if the permission is sought from the court and the case is adjourned to the subsequent date. 10. So far in the case of Karabin Baptist @ Cherubic Baptist (supra), at first instance given an idea as if this court 1as held a contrary view, that the leave to content the suit was to be filed on the very first date., It was for the said reason, the counsel for the Opposite parties submitted that filling of such leave to contest the suit on the very first date of appearance is mandatory. In the said case, this Court has held, as follow: "Learned counsel fore 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 Sourbal Prasad V. Shrimati Basanti Devi reported in 1991 BBCJ 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 court is not at all illegal and accordingly the revision was dismissed." 11. From the aforesaid finding of this Court it will be evident that this Court in the aforesaid case has not given a specific finding that the petition for leave to contest the suit is to be filed on the first day of appearance. The only finding given by this Court is that noncompliance of Sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of B.B.C. Act, 1982 is fetal and the court is bound to pass an order in terms of Sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act, which finding has been given by this Court relying on the decision of this Court given in the case of Sohrat Prasad Vs. Shrimati Basanti Devi. As reported in 1991 BBCJ 621 12. Shrimati Basanti Devi. As reported in 1991 BBCJ 621 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, I hold as follows: (a) It is necessary to file an affidavit for leave if a person wants to contest the suit in terms of Section 14(4) of the B.B.C Act. (b) It is not mandatory that on the first date of appearance, petition for leave to corsets the suit is to be filed, such petition for leaves contest the suit can be filed on the subsequent dates, if prayer for filling such petition on subsequent date granted by the court. (c) In the matter of allowing time for filling petiton for leave to contest the suit, on subsequent dates, the court should be vigilant to see as to whether the tenant is trying to drag the case or not and whether sufficient time, in the meantime ,has elapsed or not. In any case, only a short time may be allowed in fervor of the tenant for filling such affidavit to contest the suit. 13. In the present case, admittedly, on the first date of appearance of defendant petitioner i.e. on 15th December, 1993, he (defendant-petitioner) filed a petition for time to file written statement. The court below ordered to place the matter on 20th January, 1994. On 10th January, 1994 also no order was passed and the case was adjourned to 31st January, 1994, to decide the issue as to whether non filing of petition for leave to contrast the suit is fetal or not. On the third day i.e.31st of January 1994, the defendant, in fact, filed such petition for grant of leave to leave to contest the suit, but no order was passed. Thereby, it is Manifest and clear that within a period of 1.5 month from the date of appearance, the defendant-petitioners filled petition filled petition for leave to contest the suit and there by prayed for grant of leave. Subsequently, the case has been adjourned on number of days since 17th. Faber say, 1994 to 17th December,1994 and such time has been taken not by the defendant petitioner but because of the paucity of time of the court and/or another account. Thereby, it is manifest and clear that in the present case, the defendant-petitioner nerved wanted to delay the matter in disposal of the eviction suit. 14. In this backgrounds I have No hesitation to hold that the learned subordinate Judge. Thereby, it is manifest and clear that in the present case, the defendant-petitioner nerved wanted to delay the matter in disposal of the eviction suit. 14. In this backgrounds I have No hesitation to hold that the learned subordinate Judge. Dumka has passed the impugned order dated 12th December, 1994 in Title Eviction Suit No.23 of 1993, without taking into note the factual aspect that the defendant-petitioner never tried to delay the proceeding of the eviction suit by not filling the petition for leave to contest the suit on the first date. Further he has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 14(4) of the B.B.C. Act by holding that it was Mandatory on the part of the defendant petitioner to file such petition for leave to contest the suit on the very first date of appearance, which decision, the court below has given without taking into account that the time which has been sought for by the defendant petitioner on 15th December, 1993 was granted by the court below. 15. In this background, I hold the impugned order dated 12th December, 1994 as passed in title (E) Suit No.23 of 1993, as completely erroneous and set aside the same. The court below is directed to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law; on the petition for leave to contest the suit filed by the defendant petitioner on the basis of the decision given by this Court, as taken into note by me in the proceeding paragraph. 16. The Civil Revision application is, accordingly allowed. Application allowed.