The judgment established that ambiguity in pleadings, if proven in evidence, is sufficient compliance with statutory provisions, and a tenant is estopped from raising objections not taken in the reply.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The tenant petitioner is in the revision petition against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controlloer, affirmed in the appeal by the appellate authority.

2. The point for determination is whether landlords bonafidely require the premises for their son or not"?

3. The landlords are husband and wife, who have sought eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute in order to settle their son Hargun, who has done his Graduation in Business Administration and was previously working when his father was into a joint family business but now has started his own independent work under the name of Hargun Tea Company and he requires the premises for godown to run Tea business.

4. The tenant contested the petition by pleading that the landlords have other godown in their possession and they are more than 25 rooms on the first floor of the tenanted premises out of which many rooms are vacant.

5. In the rejoinder, it was pleaded by the landlords that they have no other suitable building and have not vacated any other building without sufficient cause within the urban area of Amritsar. It was further asserted that other godowns as referred by the tenant in the reply do not belong to the landlords and 25 rooms as alleged are only temporary sheds for accommodating the labourers and these alleged rooms cannot be used for storing purposes.

6. In order to prove bonafide requirement, Manpreet Singh, one of the landlord, appeared in evidence as AW-1. The tenant was given opportunity to cross-examine the landlord. In the cross-examination, landlord/respondent No.1 also stated that his son is not the owner of any other property in the urban area of Amritsar. Hargun, son of landlord respondent No.1, also appeared in the evidence and cross-examined by learned counsel for the tenant. It was clarified by the son that his father is running a firm in partnership under the name of M/s Mool Singh Bhajan Singh. In the cross-examination, he did state that at present he is doing the business from a vacant space which is covered by walls of three sides and one old shutter.

7. As noted, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority ordered eviction, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court in the revision petition.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is concealment of facts by the landlords. He has further submitted that son of the respondents is also carrying on a business under the name of Hargun Tea Company since 2009. He has next submitted that the landlord/respondent No.1, while appearned in the witness box, has admitted that there is a godown available having area of 400 square yards. He has further submitted that Hargun has also admitted that he is doing his business from a vacant space covered by three walls of three sides and old shutter.

10. This Court has considered the submissions, however, finds no substance therein.

11. The space which is alleged to be available with the landlords is belonging to a partnership firm where landlord-father is working with other partners. On careful reading of the cross-examination, it is apparent that the landlord when stepped into the witness box, has stated that he is working in the partnership i.e. M/s Mool Singh Bhajan Singh along with his brother. It has further been stated that the disputed property is 3 kms away from where the firm M/s Mool Singh Bhajan Singh is working. No doubt, it has been stated that M/s Mool Singh Bhajan Singh is having an office at Karta Ahliwalia, Niwa Bazar, Amritsar and a godown at Ghee Mandi. It is also admitted that M/s Mool Singh Bhajan Singh is operating from the first floor and there is a shed, which is also used as a godown. The property which is owned and used by the partnership firm cannot be treated as a property available for use by the son of one of the partner unless other partners give consent fo