IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1357 of 2008 MANOJ KUMAR & ANR Versus BHAGWAT PRASAD ----------- 4. 10.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 5172/2008, the delay in filing of the Civil Revision is condoned. On merits, this court does not find any error in the impugned order granting leave to the tenant, defendant opposite party for contesting the suit in terms of section 14 of the B.B.C.Act. It is an admitted position that when the suit was filed in the year 2008 the defendant tenant appeared on 13.3.2008 and on 18.4.2008 he had done two things simultaneously, namely, he had filed a written statement and he had also filed an application seeking leave to contest the suit. Counsel for the petitioners would contend that as soon as he had filed a written statement which was not accompanied and was preceded with an application seeking leave to contest the suit, he (defendant tenant) had to be non-suited and the case 2 should have been closed against him. For this purpose counsel would rely on such observations of the judgment of this Court in the case of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. vs. Suraj Kumar & anor., reported in 1986 PLJR 982, and in the case of Manik Roy vs. Raghunandan Prasad, reported in 1993(2) PLJR 215. In the opinion of this Court such submission of the counsel for the petitioners is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as if a substantial compliance of section 14 has been made by the defendant tenant on the same day by seeking leave which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 1.5.2008 this Court would not find any reason to interfere with such order. The tenants are supposed to be given an effective opportunities to contest the suit on merit which must not be disposed on mere technicality. It is not the case of the petitioner that the tenant had never sought leave rather the tenant had sought leave on the same day on which the written statement was filed by him. That being so, this Court would not 3 Surendra/ find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and this civil revision application is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)