Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) In this civil review the petitioner has prayed for review of the order dated 7.3.06 passed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 35/2006. The review of the said order has been sought for on the ground that this Court while passing the said order did not take into consideration that the application for leave to contest the suit was filed. The error crept into the said order only because of the conception that the application for leave was not filed, whereas Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is a copy of the application for leave, goes to show that application for leave was filed and that is the apparent error in the impugned order.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of W.P(C) No. 35/2006 as also the order dated 7.3.06 passed in the said writ petition which has been sought to be reviewed. Admittedly, it was a case falling within the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'] which provides special procedure for obtaining the leave of the Court for contesting the prayer of eviction by filing an affidavit. The petitioner appeared in the Court, but did not pray for leave to contest the suit. After lapse of about eight months, he filed an application (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) praying therein for grant of leave and treating the same as written statement filed on behalf of the defendant to contest the suit. Learned Court below has taken into consideration the said Annexure-2 and passed a reasoned order dated 7.10.07 rejecting the said application on the ground that the application was filed after a delay of more than seven months and the same is not acceptable, in view of the intent and purport of Section 14 and Section 11(1)(C) of the said Act. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P(C) No. 35/2006. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and the provisions of law, this Court held that the sole object of the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act is to provide speedy remedy for eviction of the tenant, if the landlord requires the premises for his personal requirement or after expiry of the fixed term tenancy and If the tenant is allowed to delay the proceeding of the suit by his act/omission, the object of Section 14 of the said Act will be frustrated. On the said consideration this Court did not find any illegality warranting interference of this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) Learned Court below or this court did not proceed on the basis that no application for leave was filed rather the ground was that application seeking leave to contest the suit was filed after lapse of more than seven months contrary to the provision of Section 14 of the said Act.;