K. S. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the tenant in respect of a non-residential premises situated in a building belonging to the respondents herein. The respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (a), (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the act' ). It is not necessary to refer to the claim under clauses (a) and (i) as the same was not urged before me. In fact, the trial court also has rejected the claim of the respondents under clauses (a) and (i) and the respondents have not challenged the same. The respondents sought eviction under clause (h) of the act on the ground that they have been residing in a rented premises at murugesh mudaliar lane; they have been doing business in cloths, watches and spare parts at devatha market, chickpet and at another shop. Both the business premises are rented premises. There are 14 members in the family of the respondents. The original first petitioner in the trial court, pukhraj, is the father of petitioners 2 and 3, who filed the eviction petition. Pukhraj died during the pendency of these proceedings. Pukhraj and his wife were stated to be old and suffering from asthma. The entire building wherein the schedule premises is situated was purchased by the landlords in the year 1979 and thereafter they sought eviction of all the tenants who were in occupation of various portions for the self occupation of the landlords. ( 2 ) THE schedule premises which is in the occupation of the champion industriesis in the ground floor. It is carrying on its business activities and therefore referred conveniently as a non-residential portion of the building. The entire building consisting of different floors. In the eviction petition the petitioners before the trial court have not stated specifically as to the portion which required by then for residence and the portion required for their business purposes. The relevant case regarding clause (h) is found at para 4 of the petition, which reads as follows:"the petitioners are residing in rented premises at the address furnished in the cause title. The petitioners are doing business in cloths and matches and spare parts at No. 37, devatha market, chickpet cross, Bangalore and at No. 34, bathing ghat lane, chickpet cross, Bangalore respectively. The business places of the petitioners are also rented premises. The petitioners are doing business in cloths and matches and spare parts at No. 37, devatha market, chickpet cross, Bangalore and at No. 34, bathing ghat lane, chickpet cross, Bangalore respectively. The business places of the petitioners are also rented premises. There are 14 members in the family of the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 and his wife are aged persons and are also suffering from asthma. The petitioners purchased the property for the purpose of their own use and occupation. The petitioners require the entire building for the own use and occupation both for residential and business purposes. Their requirement is bona fide and reasonable. The petitioners do not own any other premises, in Bangalore. The respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises on this ground, namely, that the premises is bona fide and reasonably required by the petitioners for their own use and occupation. " ( 3 ) THE tenant questioned the claim of the landlords. However, the trial court hasfound that the landlords have made out a case for eviction of the tenant under clause (h) of Section 21 (1) of the act. The trial court has held that the landlords' desire to carry on the business in their own premises and resde in their own building appear to be reasonable, and acceptable. Even though in the ground floor two tenants had vacated, the said portions are stated to have been occupied by the landlords by putting up a water storage tank and also to provide space for their workers to sleep. There is a small portion in the ground floor, which is occupied by one nagaraj who is employed in some hotel and according to the landlords the said nagaraj was willing to vacate any time and eviction petition was not therefore filed against him. During the pendency of these proceedings, it seems that the landlords have given a part of the ground floor obtained by them from other tenants to a private company for its office use and according to the landlords two of the eviction petitioners are the directors and the company belong to them and hence it was an act of self occupation by the landlords. The rear portion consisting of a room, dining hall, and kitchen is now under the occupation of another tenant and this portion is required for the occupation of pukhraj and his wife, i. e. , the old parents of the other two original petitioners. I do not find much discussion in the order of the trial court on these various aspects. The trial court has proceeded basically on the assumption that whenever a landlord seeks possession of his own premises for self occupation, when he is carrying on his business in a rented premises and has been residing in a rented premises, the requirement pleaded by the landlord will have to be accepted as reasonable. But this principle looks to me too wide. In the instant case the nature of the requirement pleaded in the eviction petition is extracted above. In the evidence, one of the eviction petitioners i. e. , jeshtmal was examined as p. w. i. nowhere in the entire evidence he states that the landlords intend to shift their business from the rented premises. Nowhere, be states that the landlords intend to start additional business or open a branch of their existing business. It has come out in evidence that the landlords are having cloth business in devatha complex and they are also dealing in watches in another rented premises. However, it is not their case that there is any pressure on them to vacate those rented premises. It was contended before me that the schedule premises involved in this case was necessary for the landlord to carry on non-residential activities. Again the plea is very vague. ( 4 ) IT was contended by Mr. Narayana sharma, learned counsel for the land lords that whenever a landlord is residing in a rented" premises and also is carrying on his business in the rented premises he can seek eviction of his tenant, so that he can reside in his own premises and carry on his business. As already observed, this is a very wide proposition. A landlord will have to establish the requirement to be reasonable and bona fide, which are the essence of Section 21 (1) (h) of the act. As already observed, this is a very wide proposition. A landlord will have to establish the requirement to be reasonable and bona fide, which are the essence of Section 21 (1) (h) of the act. A mere assertion that the landlord is already in a rented premises and therefore he can seek eviction of his tenant, if accepted, will lead to several anomalous results and would give rise to arbitrary actions for eviction on the part of the landlord. When Mr. Narayana sharma was confronted with the pleading in this case, he submitted that the pleadings should be construed liberally and a detailed statement of the requirements need not be stated in an eviction petition. According to the learned counsel, this was the principle laid down by this court in several decisions. Again I am not able to accept this submission of the learned counsel. ( 5 ) IN k. raghurama rao v h. venkatesh nayak, ILR 1985 kar. 3592 the land lordhad pleaded that premises was required to start an independent business for his disabled son who was not too bright. Parties went to trial and adduced evidence with full knowledge of the respective cases of the parties. The basic fact on which rested the proof of landlord's requirement was thus averred in the petition and was understood by the tenant. It is in this background chandrakantaraj urs, j. Observed that every specific detail need not be set out in the pleadings in regard to the type and nature of business that the landlord intends to carry on, even if there is a general pleading that premises is required to start one's own business, one could look at the surrounding circumstance, the experience the landlord has in a particular trade, his financial ability to do independent business and his skill to carry on that business. With respect, i agree with this approach; the very nature of a prolonged court proceeding renders it impossible to specify in detail the particular business to be started by the landlord in his premises. The nature of business may undergo a change during the course of proceedings. But that does not mean, the landlord need not state as to whether he intends to shift his existing business or start a new business and lead evidence as to his requirements. The nucleus of the requirement, atleast should be averred. The nature of business may undergo a change during the course of proceedings. But that does not mean, the landlord need not state as to whether he intends to shift his existing business or start a new business and lead evidence as to his requirements. The nucleus of the requirement, atleast should be averred. Law does not expect that only a person experienced in business should start a new business; there is nothing unnatural or unreasonable if a person inexperienced in business, ventures into business provided he can command requisite capital. But the facts from which the court has to infer the reasonableness of landlord's requirement should be forthcoming in evidence and the tenant should have full opportunity to meet the landlord's case. In raghurama rao's case, aforesaid, the pleading and the evidence were quite clear to establish the landlord's requirement as reasonable. ( 6 ) IN fakirasa v shekharayya, ILR 1985 kar. 2909, the court pointed out that aliberal approach is adopted while construing the pleadings. The landlords in the said case averred that they are experienced businessmen and wanted to expand their business by starting an electrical and watch repair shop in the premises occupied by the tenant and thus sought his eviction. The contention was that this pleading was insufficient and that more details of the requirement should have been stated. This court rejected this contention and it was held that plea as to the requirement was quite sufficient. In this context it was observed that, at p. 2914:"the court must only satisfy itself whether the pleading contains enough material to raise proper issues and mould the relief to which the parties would be entitled to. Technical flaws, if any, are to be ignored. This decision holds good even to this day. Sometimes the errors in pleadings would be that of the lawyer or it could be that of the litigant who is ignorant and fails to give clear instructions to his lawyer. If there is minimum material detail and that would be enough for the court to mould the relief justly on the evidence available in the case would more than satisfy the requirements of adequate pleading. " ( 7 ) THE court, however, pointed out that a minimum material detail will be necessary to enable the court to mould the relief ultimately. " ( 7 ) THE court, however, pointed out that a minimum material detail will be necessary to enable the court to mould the relief ultimately. ( 8 ) IN vijaya n. Vithal v m. h. talageri, ILR 1985 kar. 2316, hakeem, j. Had an occasion to deal with this aspect of the pleading. The principle stated was:"it appears to be well settled that even if the plea has not been specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. " ( 9 ) EARLIER at para 10, the court pointed out that by the time the application wasfiled the whole case was fully known to the tenant and the case was later on contested on the particular ground. Thus, question of an injustice to the tenant by the lack of pleading and evidence and unfair trial did not arise in the said case. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the landlords simply averred that, they are carrying on their business in rented premises and hence they require the schedule premises for their own occupation. The language of Section 21 (1) (h) is practically repeated in the petition. Neither in the petition nor in the evidence, no case was made out as to whether landlords intend to shift their business from the rented premises or start additional business in the schedule premises; the inconvenience in having the business in rented premises is not disclosed in evidence. The proposition pleaded, as the basic fact for eviction was, that, since the landlords are carrying on their business in rented premises, they require their own premises for their self occupation. In the evidence, same idea is repeated. This plea and the evidence if sufficient to order eviction of a tenant, court need not expect any pleading at all except meroning of Section 21 (l) (h) of the act in the petition. Procedural law is not so generous as to permit such a bald pleading. Court has to find out the requirement to be bona fide and reasonable before orderinr eviction. Reasonableness of the requirement is to be objective in its entirity. Procedural law is not so generous as to permit such a bald pleading. Court has to find out the requirement to be bona fide and reasonable before orderinr eviction. Reasonableness of the requirement is to be objective in its entirity. A mere say of the landlord that he wants eviction of his tenant because the landlord is carrying on his business in rented premises, without anything else, if sufficient to order eviction, is to declare a mere assertion of the landlord as a reasonable requirement. Reasonableness is opposed to arbitrariness; it is not whimsical or fanciful. The court cannot draw inference of reasonableness by a general and bald assertion on the part of the landlord that he requires vacant possession of his own premises. In the eviction petition, it is necessary for the landlord to disclose the basic facts from which reasonableness of his requirement could be inferred. In the case of his requirement to run his business, he must state as to whether he intended to shift his existing business and if so why - whether the rent he pays to his landlord makes it uneconomical to run the business in the rented premises, or whether the rented premises is inconvenient for any reason, or whether his landlord in turn, has been pressing him to vacate the premises, etc. , etc. Facts constituting the reasonableness of the requirement are innumerable and it is impossible to catalogue them. Further, all facts from which the reasonableness could be judged should be established in evidence. The principle stated by Supreme Court in mattulal v radhe lal, AIR 1974 SC 1596 has to be always borne in mind. The Supreme Court held, at p. 1603:". . . . . THAT mere assertion on the part of the landlord that he requires the non- residential accommodation in the occupation of the tenant for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business is not decisive. It is for the court to determine the truth of the assertion and also whether it is bona fide. The test which has to be applied is an objective test and not a subjective one and merely because a landlord asserts that he wants the non-residential accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business. " ( 11 ) WHEN the court said that pleadings are liberally construed, it does not dispense with any pleading at all. The test which has to be applied is an objective test and not a subjective one and merely because a landlord asserts that he wants the non-residential accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business. " ( 11 ) WHEN the court said that pleadings are liberally construed, it does not dispense with any pleading at all. Similarly, even in the absence of a specific issue or a particular plea, court may grant relief to the petitioner or the plaintiff, provided, parties proceeded with the trial fully knowing the respective claims and defence and adduce evidence accordingly. But if the basis of the landlord's requirement is not disclosed anywhere, even in his evidence, question of parties knowing the respective cases does not arise. In such a situation, only the "mere assertion" of the landlord is disclosed, which, no court can equate with a reasonable requirement, unless, it is purely one of legal issue based on admitted facts and circumstance. ( 12 ) MR. Narayana sharma cited a decision reported in byrachar v mahabalaraj,1975 kar. l. j. 66 sh. N. In support of his wider provision that whenever the landlord requires his own premises because he is residing in a rented premises, requirement should be held as reasonable. However the facts of the said decision rendered in crp nos. 2587/1973 etc. , dated 12th july, 1974 brings out the real basis of the judgment. It was stated by chandrashekar, j. (as he then was):"it is not necessary for a landlord who is himself a tenant of some other premises, to wait until he is evicted by his landlord therefrom before he seeks to occupy his own premises by evicting his tenants therefrom. In the present case the landlord has explained that the rented premises in which the printing press is situate, are in a dilapidated condition. Hence the mere absence of any demand or pressure by his landlord for vacating the premises in which he is now running the printing press, is not sufficient to hold that he does not reasonably and bona fide require for his own use the premises in the possession of his tenants. " ( 13 ) IN the said case the landlord has explained that the rented premises where in he was carrying on his business was not at all suitable because it was in a dilapi dated condition. " ( 13 ) IN the said case the landlord has explained that the rented premises where in he was carrying on his business was not at all suitable because it was in a dilapi dated condition. It is in this background the claim of the landlord was held to be reasonable. The first sentence in the observation quoted above has to be read along with the next sentence. ( 14 ) IT is true that a landlord need not wait for being evicted from the premises where in he has been residing before he seeks eviction of his own tenant; but when the landlord claims that he requires his own premises for self occupation, the court will have to test whether the said claim is reasonable and whether there is an 'element of need' in it. For the application of an objective test in this regard, the landlord will have to explain as to why he has to shift from the rented premises and seek his own premises and if the said explanation is acceptable as reasonable, the court may in appropriate cases draw the inference that it is reasonable. But a mere ipse dixit of the landlord is not certainly sufficient for the court to accept it as a reasonable requirement. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, the pleading as well as the evidence as to the requirement of the landlord is bald and it is not possible to uphold the finding of the trial court that the requirement as asserted by the landlord is reasonable. It is also brought to my notice that the landlords are seeking eviction of the tenant from a portion of the first floor on the ground of their requirement for residence and similarly a part of the second floor is already in their possession, which is being used for the residence. The learned counsel for the landlords also states that the landlords have been evicted from their residential rented premises situated at murugesh mudaliar lane and therefore there is a great pressure on them. That may be so, but in the instant case it is not their case that they require this part of the building for their residential purpose at all. It was specifically argued that this portion (schedule premises) is required only for non- residential purposes. That may be so, but in the instant case it is not their case that they require this part of the building for their residential purpose at all. It was specifically argued that this portion (schedule premises) is required only for non- residential purposes. If so, a clear case will have to be made out in this regard. ( 16 ) THE requirement of the landlords may recur and fresh causes may contribute for additional or further requirement. In such a situation it is for the landlords to file fresh eviction petition. The present order dismissing the revision petition certainly will not come in the way of the landlords from seeking eviction of their tenant, provided a fresh case is made out. In the present case before me, it is impossible to make out what was the case pleaded and made out. The landlords cannot mix up the non-residential requirement with the requirement for residence because the court's approach will be different under these two different set of circumstances. In fact the requirement of the landlords also will be different for these two purposes. It is not possible to uphold the order of the trial court and the same is liable to be set aside. ( 17 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and theorder under revision is set aside. The eviction petition filed by the landlords in this case is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .