ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mr. L.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 3.10.2002 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 41/2001 by the Munsif Bermo at Tenughat whereby the Court below has granted leave to the defendant-opposite party to contest the suit for eviction filed on the ground of personal necessity.
3. Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before filing written statement it was necessary for the defendant-opposite party first to take leave of the
Court by filing an affidavit and it is only after leave is granted, written statement could be accepted. Learned counsel put reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Manik Roy v. Raghunandan Prasad reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 215.
4. In the instant case the only irregularity committed by the defendant-opposite party is that before filing affidavit seeking leave of the Court she filed written statement. However, subsequently an affidavit seeking leave of the Court to contest the suit by filing written statement was filed. The learned Court below considered the written statement and found that the defendant denied and disputed not only the relationship of landlord and tenant but also disputed the plea of personal necessity of the plaintiff. The Court came to the conclusion that for the ends of justice it is a fit case where leave should be granted to the defendant-opposite party to contest the suit.
5. As noticed above it was only after filing of the written statement the Court below granted leave to the defendant-opposite party to contest the suit. It is well settled that if the defendant makes out prima facie case to contest the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity then leave should normally be granted. It is also equally well settled that when the written statement discloses a plausible defence to contest the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity then the Court should liberal in granting leave to the tenant to contest the suit. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Precision Steel & Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal reported in (1982) 3 SCC 270, Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh and Ors. reported in (1983) 3 SCC 376, Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 301 and Devidayal Rolling Mills v. Prakash Chimanlal Parikh and Ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 470.
6. Having regard to the law settled by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, the ratio decided by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court will be of no help to the petitioner.
7. Be that as it may, since the Court below has exercised its Judicial discretion in granting leave to the defendant to contest the suit, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This civil revision application is dismissed.