JUDGMENT ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J.—This case has been heard at the admission stage and is being finally disposed of after the parties had been heard at length. Eviction petition was filed against late Shri Chander Mani tenant who died during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority below. Premises in dispute consists of three rooms, kitchen, both and laterine situate in the ground floor of the building known as Shankar Kuti, Subhash Nagar, Ruldu Bhatha, Shimla. According to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the landlords) these premises were required by them for providing accommodation to petitioner No. 1 Jai Kumar and his family members who was residing in a one-room tenement along with his family in Amrosia Building, Ram Bazar, Shimla which accommodation was not sufficient at all for him. Further case of the respondents was that family of petitioner No. 1 consisted of himself, his mother and four minor children between the ages of five to ten years. It may be appropriate to mention here that this petition was filed on 1-9-1989. While claiming eviction of the tenants, description of the premises in occupation of the landlords other than Jai Kumar was given as also details of eviction petitions having been filed in respect of other tenants for the requirement of other landlords. Arrears of rent was also a ground for evicton of the tenants. Since the rent was paid, this ground was given up. 2. This petition was resisted and contested by the tenants, who pleaded that the petition is not maintainable in its present form, it being mala fide as also the landlords are estopped from filing the petition on account of their own acts, deeds, conduct, lapses, admissions, laches, etc On merits, while disputing the requirement of the landlords, it was pleaded that the petitioner is aimed at enhancing the rent as also landlords have not come to the Court with clean hands and thus dismissal of the ejectment petition was prayed for. In the rejoinder filed by the landlords, pleas raised in the petition were re-affirmed and those which were contrary to such pleas in the reply of the respondents were controverted. 3. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the respondents is in arrears of rent / as alleged ? ... .OPP. 2. 3. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the respondents is in arrears of rent / as alleged ? ... .OPP. 2. Whether the premises in dispute are bona fide required by the petitioner No, 1 for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of family members ? OPP. 3. Whether the petition in the present form is not maintainable ? OPR. 4. Whether the petitioners are estopped to file the present petition due to their own acts, deeds, conduct, lapses, admissions, laches, etc. ? OPR. 5. Relief. Issues No. 1, 3 and 4 were decided in the negative, whereas issue No. 2 was decided in the affirmative and under issue No. 5, order of eviction was passed in favour of the landlords and against the tenants. 4. Such findings recorded by the Rent Controller were questioned by the tenants. On examination of the entire material, the Appellate Authority below has upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller hence this revision petition at the instance of the tenants. 5. Before respective submissions urged on behalf of the tenants are examined, it may be appropriate to mention here that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. being CMP No. 447 of 1997 was filed by the tenants stating that since certain developments have taken place during the pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Court below and this Court, therefore, it has become necessary to seek the leave of the Court to amend its reply. According to tenants, landlords had acquired additional accommodation consisting of a three-room set in building in question along with kitchen, bath room and toilet in the year 1995 from Smt. Dropti as also two-room set with kitchen, bath room and laterine from the legal heirs of Tulsi Ram on 30-9-1997. As per the tenants after having come into possession of this much accommodation, the landlords were not in bona fide requirement of the premises in question as this additional accommodation has been made available to them by the aforesaid two tenants which is sufficient for use by the landlords including Jai Kumar. 6. As per the tenants after having come into possession of this much accommodation, the landlords were not in bona fide requirement of the premises in question as this additional accommodation has been made available to them by the aforesaid two tenants which is sufficient for use by the landlords including Jai Kumar. 6. Landlords while filing reply to this application admitted that they had come into possession of the premises detailed in this application, but qualified that the accommodation vacated by Dropti Devi and legal heirs of Tulsi Ram is required by the landlords Kamla Devi, Anju, Manju, Deepak and Dinesh. According to the landlords, both these premises had been specifically got vacated for the requirements of these landlords and thus, simply because such premises fell vacant, it cannot be made a ground to defeat the claim of Jai Kumar landlord. Not only this, landlords further pleaded that Mahesh Kumar landlord had initiated eviction proceedings against one of the tenants in premises namely, Bhagat Ram which was allowed by the Rent Controller. The matter is pending in appeal before the Appellate Court below. 7. When the matter came up for hearing on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the tenants submitted that unless the permission to amend the written statement was allowed in view of the subsequent developments referred to hereinabove, thereafter permitting the tenants to lead evidence to establish these facts, this Court will not be in a position to adjudicate the dispute properly and effectively and it was prayed that before taking up the matter further, application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. on behalf of the tenants needs to be allowed. Thereafter either the report from the Appellate Authority below may be called or this Court may itself record the evidence. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlords submitted that the present application is another attempt to delay the already protracted litigation by the tenants. It was further pointed out on behalf of the landlords that the premises in question have since come into possession and were subsequently sought for the bona fide requirement of the family of Kamla Devi and other landlords respondents Nos. 4 to 10 arrayed in this revision petition. It was further pointed out on behalf of the landlords that the premises in question have since come into possession and were subsequently sought for the bona fide requirement of the family of Kamla Devi and other landlords respondents Nos. 4 to 10 arrayed in this revision petition. As such it cannot be said that Jai Kumar came into possession of such premises or it was the entire body of the landlords i.e. all of them who came into possession of such premises. Therefore, it was urged that there is no need of either amending the reply to the eviction proceedings and/or permitting the tenants to lead evidence. 9. So far evidence in this case is concerned, on behalf of the tenants only two witnesses have appeared who had referred to record and beyond that nothing has been said by them. Admittedly, tenant has not appeared before the Rent Controller below. On the other hand, attorney of landlord No. 1 as well as other witnesses were examined. Rent Controller below as well as the Appellate Authority below came to the conclusion that the requirement of landlord Jai Kumar was bona fide and have thus, ordered eviction of the tenants from the premises In question. 10. Shri G.D, Verma, learned counsel for the tenants has raised three-fold submissions, namely, that the requirement being bona fide must subsist at all stages, subsequent events which take place during the pendency of the eviction petition are required to be examined while considering the question of bona fide requirement of the landlords and lastly it was urged that since eviction petition was not as envisaged under Section 14 of HP. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, as such the present revision petition was liable to be allowed and consequently eviction petition be dismissed. 11. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Sood, learned counsel for the landlords has controverted all the three grounds raised in support of this revision petition and has submitted that no case is made out for interference in these proceedings. According to Shri Sood, the premises which came into possession were specifically sought for the requirement of Kamla Devi and others and according to him, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. According to Shri Sood, the premises which came into possession were specifically sought for the requirement of Kamla Devi and others and according to him, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Taking the application of the tenant for amendment of its reply to the eviction petition first, it may be noticed that the original tenant who was admittedly alive when the proceedings were pending before the Rent Controller has not cared to appear in the witness box. The only two witnesses examined on behalf of the tenants are RW-1 Med Ram, Record-keeper, State Bank of India, Shimla who has proved the payment of rent in favour of the counsel for the landlords and RW-2 is Han Ram Sharma, Tax Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Shimla who has produced on record a certificate (Ext. RW-2/A) lo the effect that the record prior to 1987-88 has been destroyed. He has shown on record that as per Municipal Record, Rameshwar Sharma, owner has got two rooms, one kitchen and one bath and this entry continues since 1989. This is the entire evidence examined on behalf of the tenants. 13. On the other hand, landlords have examined Mahesh Kumar (PW-1) as attorney of Jai Kumar. He has given the details of the premises in the possession of landlords, size of their respective families as well as the details of tenanted premises which are in occupation of the landlords concerned including Jai Kumar, for whose requirement eviction petition had been filed. Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be brought on record so as to dislodge the size of the family members of each one of the landlords much less of Jai Kumar. Charan Dutt Sharma is PW~2 who has stated that in the relevant record of Election Department for the year 1987-88 in Amroshia Building, Jai Kumar and his mother are shown at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7. PW-3 is Lal Singh, who has prepared the site plans of the premises in occupation of the tenants and landlords. PW-4 is Satinder Kumar who has given the size of the family of the landlord. PW-5 is Chetan Parkash, another tenant of landlords in building No. 3 who has stated that he is occupying one shop in the said building. 14. PW-4 is Satinder Kumar who has given the size of the family of the landlord. PW-5 is Chetan Parkash, another tenant of landlords in building No. 3 who has stated that he is occupying one shop in the said building. 14. Whatever evidence has been led by the landlords qua the size of their families and requirement, on examination of the case it is clear that the same has not been rebutted by the tenants in any manner whatsoever. Thus, on examination of the entire evidence as well as the circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on proper appreciation of evidence that the requirement of premises in question for Jai Kumar and the family members is bona fide and such findings cannot be said to be illegal or improper calling for interference in this revision petition. So far proposed amendments are concerned, in view of the stand of the landlords that they have come into possession of the premises in question, those were got vacated for the requirement of Kamla Devi, Anuju, Manju, Kaushalaya, Rajani, Deepak and Dinesh. Here it may be appropriate to mention that to the reply filed by the landlords to CMP No. 447 of 1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., no rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the tenants. In any event, it is of no significance because it has been argued on behalf of the landlords that a single counsel was representing all the four tenants against whom landlords had initiated eviction proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the parties were not aware of the previous litigation, in this view of the matter as well as in view of the stand of the tenants that the premises have, in fact, been vacated by the tenants concerned even without amendment and without evidence, the case can proceed. 15. What appears to be the intention of the tenants in this case is that since , they have not led any evidence in this case despite seven opportunities having been allowed to them by the Rent Controller under the guise of this amendment application they want to fill in the lacunae in that behalf. 15. What appears to be the intention of the tenants in this case is that since , they have not led any evidence in this case despite seven opportunities having been allowed to them by the Rent Controller under the guise of this amendment application they want to fill in the lacunae in that behalf. It may be appropriate to mention here that at no point of time, tenants were ever aggrieved by the order of closure of evidence passed by the Rent Controller below as far back as on 28-2-1994. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the application for amendment is either bona fide or has been filed with a view to advance the case of the tenants in any manner whatsoever. Even otherwise the matter can be effectively heard and disposed on the facts detailed in the application and its reply filed by the landlords. Accordingly the application stands disposed of. 16. It was further submitted by Shri G.D. Verma, learned counsel for the tenants that the findings of the courts below are contrary to law as requirements of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act have not been complied with and the landlords have not pleaded all the ingredients of Section 14 of the said Act. It was further urged that the courts below had not recorded any findings in that behalf, therefore, the order of eviction cannot be sustained. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1979 ILR (HP) Series) 1 SC, Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas. When a reference is made to this judgement and the pleadings to the present case, suffice it to say that the necessary ingredients have been pleaded by the landlords in this case in para 18(a) of the eviction petition and both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the premises are bona fide required by the landlords for residence of Jai Kumar. As such plea has been raised simply to be rejected. To be fair to Shri G.D. Berma, learned counsel for the tenants, it may be appropriate to refer to another case on which reliance has been placed by him i.e., 1997, Vol. I, Shimla Law Cases 469, Vijay Kapoor and another v. Maya Ram. As such plea has been raised simply to be rejected. To be fair to Shri G.D. Berma, learned counsel for the tenants, it may be appropriate to refer to another case on which reliance has been placed by him i.e., 1997, Vol. I, Shimla Law Cases 469, Vijay Kapoor and another v. Maya Ram. In this case, while allowing the tenants revision petition and setting aside the ejectment order, the learned Single Judge of this Court has decided the case on two grounds, namely, that the landlord had failed to make a full and fair disclosure of the material facts inasmuch as that he did not disclose the full accommodation available with him and the other ground was that the landlord had raised additional construction, one of his wives having died during the pendency of the proceedings. This judgement is clearly a judgment on its own facts. So far as merits are concerned, in para-19 reliance was placed on a judgement of this court reported in 1992(2) RCJ 323, Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and others. This judgement has been set aside by the Honble Supreme Court in its decision dated 7-12-1995 in S.LP. (C) No. 10382 of 1992. Thus, no benefit can be derived by the tenants from this decision. 17. On the other hand, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the landlords on the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 344, Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, wherein amongst other things, it was observed that whether an alternative accommodation was actually available would depend upon landlords right to such accommodation. In the instant case, admittedly landlord Jai Kumar is occupying tenanted premises in Amroshia Building, Ram Bazar, Shimla. So far as the accommodation which has come into the possession of the landlords from Dropti Devi and legal heirs of Tulsi Ram is concerned, it is specifically meant for the requirement of landlords, namely, Kamla Devi, Anju, Manju, Kaushalaya, Rajni, Deepak and Dinesh. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the accommodation which fell vacant during the pendency of the appeal and the revision petition was in fact, available for the bona fide requirement of Jai Kumar. No other point has been urged in support of this revision petition. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. No other point has been urged in support of this revision petition. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. Costs on the parties. CM.P. No. 392 of 1997. No order in view of the order passed in the main case. Petition dismissed.