The main legal point established in the judgment is that ambiguity in pleadings regarding necessary ingredients, if made good in the evidence, is a sufficient compliance of the statutory requirement.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - This order shall dispose of 11 civil revision petitions filed by the tenants of same landlords. Learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners in the various petitions have been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority. Their eviction has been ordered on the ground that the landlords require the premises for their bonafide requirement.

3. Heard the learned senior counsel representing the respective parties and with their able assistance perused the judgments as well as the record of the courts below.

4. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners has referred to the facts from CR-6665-2016.

5. There are as many as 12 co-owners of showroom no.55-56, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The petitioners (tenants) are in possession of the different portions thereof. The landlords sought eviction on the ground that in the entire building, now they wish to start a joint venture under the name and style of M/s Malwa Stores and Services in the entire building. For that purpose, they have prepared a project report and arranged funds.

6. While filing the petition, the landlords in para 13 asserted as under:-

'13. That there is no other commercial property owned jointly and occupied by the petitioners in the Urban Area of Chandigarh or any other place in India except the demised premise which is more suitable for the proposed project."

7. The tenants contested the petition claiming that the requirement of the landlords is not bonafide as they have been giving on rent various portions of the premises at various points in time.

8. The landlords had also filed replication. On appreciation of the pleadings, the Rent Controller had framed the following issues for adjudication:-

'1. Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioners for their own bonafide use and occupation, if so, its effect?

2. Whether the petitioner Amarbir Sidhu is competent to file the petition on behalf of other petitioners no.1 to 11? OPR

3. Relief."

9. Sh.Amarbir Sidhu, respondent no.2, who is also the attorney of petitioner no.1 to 11, appeared in evidence as PW1 and produced documents Ex.P1 to P13. On the other hand, on behalf of the tenants Sh.B.R.Bansal, appeared in evidence and produced various documents. As already noticed, both the authorities have ordered the eviction of the petitioners.

10. During the pendency of the first appeal, an application for permission to lead the additional evidence was allowed and the tenants were given an opportunity to lead further evidence as the tenants asserted that the landlords have during the pendency of the petitions leased out certain portion of the property. The appellate authority, after considering the additional evidence, dismissed the said appeals.

11. The learned counsel representing the petitioners (tenants) submits that the landlords have failed to plead the necessary ingredients which are a cause of fatality to their case. While relying upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench in Banke Ram vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi, 1977 (1) RCR (Rent) 595, the learned counsel contends that in the absence of the pleadings regarding the necessary ingredients, the petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the project report has not been proved and the various landlords are residing in the various parts of the world. He, hence, submits that the requirement of the landlords for needing the premises is not bonafide. In the end, he submitted that one portion of the building fell vacant during the pendency of the petition in which the landlords opened a showroom named 'Blacks'. He submits that the landlords do not require the premises.

12. Per contra, the learned senior counsel representing the landlords submitted that they should not be non-suited on the ground of lack of necessary pleadings, particularly, when the tenants never objected to the maintainability of the petition