IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.457 of 2007 ---- 1. Ramendra Kumar Agrawal. 2. Pramendra Kumar Agarwal. 3. Sumendra Kumar Agarwal All sons of Sri Dhruva Kumar Agarwal. 4. Manju Agarwal wife of Dhruva Kumar Agarwal. All residents of Mohalla- Laheriatola, Police Station Kotwali P.O. Town, District-Gaya. -- Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Versus Uma Shanker son of Ramswaroop Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Chak Road, Police Station Kotwali, P.O.-Town and District-Gaya at present resident of Mohalla- Tutwari, Opposite Ram Chandra School, Police Station –Kotwali, P.O. Town, District-Gaya. -- Defendants- Opposite Parties. ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Triloki Nath Maitin, Senior Advocate. M/s Ramadhar Singh & Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For the opposite party : None. ----- 02. 19.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 11.12.2006 by which learned Munsif-I, Gaya allowed the affidavit filed by the sole defendant- opposite party and granted him leave to contest the suit, namely Eviction Suit No.16 of 2005. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners under the provision of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) for eviction of the sole defendant- opposite party on the ground of expiry of registered deed of lease dated 30.09.1999. In the said suit, the defendant appeared and filed - 2 - an affidavit for leave to contest within the prescribed time and prayer of the defendant has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 11.12.2006 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below on the ground that the registered deed of lease dated 30.09.1999 was admitted and according to it the fixed term of tenancy expired in the year 2004 and hence the tenant was duty bound to vacate the suit premises thereafter. 5. So far the plea of oral extension raised by the defendant is concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners submits that the said question cannot be legally looked into by the learned court below in view of the specific provisions of law as well as the lease agreement. 6. From the arguments as well as the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that although the defendants has admitted the execution of the registered deed of lease dated 30.09.2009, but certain other facts have also been raised by him which are matters of facts and can be decided only after hearing of the suit. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned Munsif-I, Gaya - 3 - to expedite the proceedings according to the provision of Section 14 of the Act and since this eviction suit has been filed in the year 2005 on the ground mentioned in Section 11(e) of the Act, the suit has to proceed according to Section 14 of the Act. Hence, the defendant must be directed to file his written statement within fifteen days and if he does not file written statement within the said period he should not be allowed to do so later and in any case the court must commence the hearing of the suit immediately thereafter and decide the same positively within six months thereafter. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)