Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. By this common order, six revision petitions viz. Civil Revision No.3720 of 2010 titled as "Nirmal Gupta v. Satnam Singh", Civil Revision No.3724 of 2010 titled as "Gurmit Singh v. Satnam Singh", Civil Revision No.3725 of 2010 titled as "Gurmit Singh v. Satnam Singh", Civil Revision No.3810 of 2010 titled as "Balraj Gupta v. Satnam Singh", Civil Revision No.4001 of 2010 titled as "Major Ram v. Satnam Singh" and Civil Revision No.4004 of 2010 titled as "Avtar Singh v. Satnam Singh", shall be decided together as learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the arguments, raised by them, are common in all these revision petitions. 2. By accepting this prayer, I proceed to notice the brief facts of the case from Civil Revision No.3720 of 2010. 3. Respondent-Satnam Singh is a Non Resident Indian and is having the ownership of various shops situated at Phagwara-Sharki, Banga Road, Phagwara. The respondent has let out six shops on rent to all the six petitioners. Besides these six shops, there are four other shops, which, according to the landlord, are lying vacant. Learned counsel for the petitioners have raised the following submissions to urge that the Rent Controller, Phagwara, ought to have granted leave to defend and the impugned order dated 11.5.2010 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law:- A) That the shops are constructed in the land measuring 10 marlas, which was purchased by the landlord vide sale deed dated 12.6.1986 (Annexure P2) from one Rajesh Kumar. It is stated that this land formed part of the large chunk of the land and there is no partition of the khasra and it cannot be said that the said land, owned by the respondent/landlord, is the same land on which the shops have been constructed. In reply to this argument, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the land was purchased in the year 1986 and the shops were constructed thereupon by the respondent. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, there is no doubt that the shops have been constructed over the land which was purchased by the respondent/landlord, especially when the rent is being paid to father of the respondent. B) Secondly, it has been urged on behalf of the tenants that the eviction petition was signed on 8.11.2007, whereas the same was instituted on 25.6.2008. B) Secondly, it has been urged on behalf of the tenants that the eviction petition was signed on 8.11.2007, whereas the same was instituted on 25.6.2008. It is stated that the respondent/landlord had left India on 5.11.2006, therefore, the eviction petition could not be signed on 8.11.2007. To controvert this argument, learned counsel for the respondent has produced photocopy of the passport of the respondent which contain the stamp of Immigration Authorities, revealing that the landlord came to India on 26.10.2007 and left the country on 11.11.2007. Therefore, this argument is also to be rejected. C) Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the eviction petition, only bald assertion has been made that the premises are required for personal use and occupation of the landlord wherein he intend to start his business. It is stated that the landlord has not given the details regarding the nature of business, which he intend to start and as to how many shops are required for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed before this Court that four shops, which are lying vacant, are sufficient for the need of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the landlord is required to be cross-examined in the context that as to what kind of business he intend to start and as to how many shops are required for the same. To controvert this argument, leaned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, A.I.R. 2006 Supreme Court 59 and has urged that the Court should presume the landlords need, so pleaded, as genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that heavy burden lay upon the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. There is no quarrel with this proposition. But at the same time, if the Court has to presume that the need of the landlord is genuine, he must disclose as to how much area is required and as to what kind of business he intends to start. This material aspect is lacking in the eviction petition. It has also not been specifically pleaded by the landlord that four shops, which are lying vacant, are not sufficient and he requires the entire premises to start his business. This material aspect is lacking in the eviction petition. It has also not been specifically pleaded by the landlord that four shops, which are lying vacant, are not sufficient and he requires the entire premises to start his business. In the eviction petition, the following averments have been made: "...a) That the petitioner requires the shop in dispute for his personal use, requirement and occupation. The petitioner has made his mind to settle in India, at Phagwara and to start business in the shop in dispute and its adjoining/other shops, which are part and parcel of one compact building. The petitioner/applicant lias come to India and requires the shop in dispute for his permanent settlement in India, which is the part and parcel of said building having his ownership vide said fard jamabandi, for his personal residence and opening new business. The petitioner has enough money to invest in India and to start his business. There is a good scope of business in the place where the shop in dispute is situated. Moreover, the said building is situated on Phagwara-Banga-Chandigarh highway..." 4. In the application for leave to defend the eviction petition, the tenant has taken the following stand:- "...The four shops in the ground floor and the first floor of the entire building is lying vacant. If the petitioner is owner of the said building, the petitioner can use the vacant shop and first floor of his business if he intends to do so..." 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the landlord ought to have broadly stated as to what kind of business he intended to start; as to whether four shops, which are lying vacant, are not sufficient and as to whether the six shops in dispute are also required for his business. The landlord has simply stated that there is good scope of business in the place where the disputed shops are situated. No averment has been made in the context as to whether for the good scope of business, four shops are sufficient, which are lying vacant. What is the nature of business which the landlord intended to start and as to whether six shops in dispute are required for proposed business. No averment has been made in the context as to whether for the good scope of business, four shops are sufficient, which are lying vacant. What is the nature of business which the landlord intended to start and as to whether six shops in dispute are required for proposed business. Therefore, this Court is of the view that atleast this is a triable issue as to whether all the shops are required by the respondent/landlord or not. 6. Hence, all the six revision petitions are hereby accepted and the impugned order dated 4.3.2008, whereby leave to defend the eviction petition was declined to the petitioners, is set aside. The petitioners are granted leave to defend the eviction petition. The Rent Controller, Phagwara, is directed to try and decide the eviction petitions, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by providing three effective opportunities to both the sides to lead their evidence.