JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The tenant in the demised premises becoming aggrieved by the concurrently recorded verdicts, of, eviction, pronounced, respectively, upon, Rent Petition No. 193-2 of 2015/2010, and, upon Rent Appeal No. 35-S/14 of 2017, respectively by the learned Rent Controller-s, Shimla, and, by the learned Appellate Authority-IV, Shimla, H.P., and, hence, for begetting reversal thereof, has, instituted the extant civil revision petition before this Court. 2. The landlady claimed eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises, on the statutory ground appertaining, to, her bonafidely requiring the afore premises, for, accommodating therein, her younger son, and, for enabling her married daughter, to, upon, hers visiting her matrimonial home, to, comfortably reside therein, as, the accommodation extantly available with the landlady being incommodious, and, insufficient, for meteing the bonafide requirement of both, her younger son, and, for her daughter, upon, the latter visiting, her matrimonial home. 3. Obviously, the afore petition was constituted, under, the provisions, of, Section 14(3), of, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the apt provisions whereof, along with the apposite there underneath provisos, are, extracted hereinafter:- "Section 14(3) provides that: "(3) A landlord may apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession- (a) in the case of residential building, if- (i) he requires it for his own occupation; Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned; Provided further than he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area." Despite a peremptory mandate, becoming, existed in the apposite proviso, occurring underneath, the substantive provisions of Section 14(3) of the Act, hence, injuncting, the, landlord to within the domains thereof, make, all therein occurring full, and, completest disclosures, rather in the eviction petition, (i) and, despite the tenant, in his reply to the eviction petition, rearing objections qua therewith, (ii) yet, the, landlord, not thereafter, through, hers instituting, a, rejoinder thereto, repulsing the afore averments, does, attract hereat, the proviso(s), occurring underneath, the, provisions of Section 14(3), of, the Act. The apposite proviso(s) are cast, in, a mandatory language, and, make it peremptory, upon, the landlord/landlady, to, for rendering his/her eviction petition becoming validily constituted, to make, all the apt completest or the fullest disclosures, necessarily, and, reiteratedly, with, the statute, casting, an, unbendable rigorous apposite therewith injunction, upon, him/her. 4. Even though, the afore peremptory requirement, of, law, remains unaverred in the eviction petition. However, the learned counsel appearing, for, the respondent/landlady contends, that, the afore omission becoming actionable, and, non suiting the landlady, only, upon, evidence surging forth, vis-a-vis, the mandate, of, the proviso, becoming evidently breached, and, he submits that since the afore evidence, is, amiss, thereupon, for, the afore wants, rather, immense hardship, and, injustice, would be encumbered, upon, the landlady, upon, the espoused statutory insistences being made, upon, the landlady. Nonetheless, the afore submission falters, (a) as, the afore peremptory injunction, of, law is not amenable for dilution nor its statutory rigor can become whittled, awaiting, the emergence, of, apposite breaching therewith evidence. (b) As the afore requirement is independent, upon, breaching therewith evidence, becoming adduced, (c) rather the statute, peremptorily enjoins, upon, the landlord/landlady, to, in the eviction petition make averments, in consonance therewith, and, obviously, thereupon, when evidence adversarial, vis-a-vis, the afore statutorily required averments, stands adduced, by the petitioner/tenant, thereupon, alone the petition, would become stained, with an aura of malafides, and, would constrain the courts of law, to, non suit the landlady/landlord, and, necessarily, initial wants thereof, rather rendering the petition becoming invalidly constituted, and, also it becoming stained with vice, of, statutory suppressions. 5. Even otherwise, given hence binding, and, conclusive verdicts, becoming rendered by this Court, in, a case titled as Tara Chand vs. Baij Nath, (1994) Supp ShimLC 87, wherein, in paragraph No.16 thereof, a candid expostulation of law, casts, a, dire statutory necessity, upon, the landlord/landlady, to, in the eviction petition, hence make the afore fullest, and, completest disclosures, for hence, satiation being meted, vis-a-vis, the proviso, as, occurring underneath, the mandate of Section 14(3) of the Act, thereupon, also the afore made address before this Court, by, the learned counsel appearing, for, the respondent/landlady, becomes staggered, and, also becomes untenable. 6. 6. Be that as it may, there is no wrangle, vis-a-vis, the espousal made before this Court, by the learned counsel, appearing for the tenant/petitioner, that prior to the instant eviction petition becoming instituted, before the Rent Controller concerned, another rent petition bearing No. 36-2 of 2008, becoming dismissed, as, withdrawn on 18.9.2009, (i) and, when it is also not contested inter se the contesting litigants, that, within the ambit of Order 23 of the CPC, no leave to institute, a, fresh petition becoming thereat afforded to the landlady, (ii) hence, dehors the afore pleaded bonafide need, of, the landlady, for, the requisite purpose being, a, recurring need, and, also purveying, her, a continuous, and, recurring cause of action, (iii) and, not inviting the wrath, of, statutory estoppel arising from the earlier eviction petition being dismissed, as, withdrawn, without leave being granted, to, the landlady, to, re-institute afresh, it, on fresh grounds, (iv) yet when during the pendency of the earlier eviction petition, an application stood cast, under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17, of the CPC, application whereof, is, embodied in Ex.RW2/A, and, stood instituted before the learned Rent Controller concerned, and, when the proposed strived, for, amendments, as, occurring in paragraph No.18(a) thereof, do visibly carry similar overtones, both in phraseology, and, in content, vis-a-vis, the phraseology averred, in, the extant petition, (v) thereupon, the simplicitor dismissal, as, withdrawn, of, the earlier eviction petition, carrying therein a cause of action, and, grounds, similar, to the one incorporated, in, the extant petition, does, invite, the, wrath, of, the statutory principle of estoppel, (vi) and, also weans or blunts the effect, of, any arguments, addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the landlady/respondent, and, that the espoused need, is, a recurring or a continuing cause of action, (vii) and, also erodes, the vigour, of, his further espousal qua dehors the earlier dismissal of the eviction petition, even without leave to institute a fresh eviction petition, on, a fresh cause of action, not, inviting the wrath of the principle, of, statutory estoppel. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant Civil Revision Petition, is, allowed, and, orders impugned before this Court, are set aside. Consequently, the rent petition No. 193-2 of 2015/2019 is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.