JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral): - Counsel for the parties are in agreement that in view of the facts, issues raised and the arguments advanced, all the six revision petitions can be decided together by a common order, therefore I proceed to do the same. 2. Respondent-Krishan Lal Mahmotra is owner of a big shopping complex having ten shops. He instituted eviction petitions separately against all the tenants under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) on the ground of personal necessity. The fact that the respondent-landlord is a Non-Resident Indian and is owner of the building for the last five years is not disputed seriously. Therefore, at this stage, this Court will neither examine the competence of the landlord to institute the eviction petition under Section 13B of the Act, nor the relationship of landlord-tenant. Since the only grievance of six out of the ten tenants, who have filed the present revision petitions, is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, leave to defend ought to have been granted, in that context facts shall be briefly noticed. 3. Respondent-landlord-Krishan Lal Mahmotra had rented out the shops to the tenants and rent notes were also executed. The rent notes stipulated that the rent would be paid in advance against a receipt, the tenants would not sub-let the demised premises and would not change the use of tenanted premises without permission, the tenants would have no connection with the roof of the shop and the owner can use and raise construction over the roof. The electricity bill and house tax were to be paid by the tenants. The building, in which the tenants were inducted, was purchased by the respondent-landlord along with his wife by two registered sale deeds dated 10th June, 1977 and 27th June, 1977. The respondent-landlord further pleaded that he is a Non-Resident Indian living and working in Canada for his livelihood. Having retired from his service in Canada, he intended to shift to his native country, India. 4. Counsel for the parties have supplied a copy of the eviction petition, in which following categoric averment has been made regarding personal necessity: “3.(A) … … … … … The Petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation. Having retired from his service in Canada, he intended to shift to his native country, India. 4. Counsel for the parties have supplied a copy of the eviction petition, in which following categoric averment has been made regarding personal necessity: “3.(A) … … … … … The Petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation. The Petitioner is intending and planning to settle here in India and to start and do business in the demised premises after its reconstruction to earn his livelihood and to pass his remaining life peacefully in his native Country. Moreso, it is situated in the heart of city and is fit for carrying out any kind of business.” 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants have submitted that the landlord has not divulged the nature of business and it cannot be comprehended as to whether for running the business, all the ten shops are required or the business proposed can be carried out in 2, 4 or 6 shops. Counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that it was incumbent upon the landlord to broadly state the nature of business so that the parties could raise a legitimate defence that for the proposed business, all the shops are required or not. 6. Mr. K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord, has stated that the eviction petition need not to contain all minute details and they can always be supplemented by way of evidence. If that is so, at least this is a triable issue. 7. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that as to whether the personal need and occupation of the premises by the landlord is bonafide or not, is required to be examined on the facts of the case. If the facts incorporated in the eviction petition are such that they aspire confidence and the Court can come to a conclusion that the entire premises is required, then leave to defend can be refused. Since, in the present case, the eviction petition is lacking on this material aspect, this Court is of the view that the Rent Controller ought to have granted leave to defend. The respondent-landlord shall be at liberty to justify, in his evidence, the nature of business and the fact that the entire premises is required for running of business. Since, in the present case, the eviction petition is lacking on this material aspect, this Court is of the view that the Rent Controller ought to have granted leave to defend. The respondent-landlord shall be at liberty to justify, in his evidence, the nature of business and the fact that the entire premises is required for running of business. In case, such a course is adopted by the respondent-landlord, the tenants will be well within their rights to test such a bonafide requirement of the landlord by way of cross-examination. 8. Hence, the impugned order, whereby leave to defend was declined, is hereby set aside and leave to defend is granted in favour of the petitioners. The Rent Controller, Phagwara is directed to decide the eviction petition within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after affording three effective opportunities for leading evidence to both sides. 9. With the observations made above, all the aforesaid six revision petitions are disposed of.