JUDGMENT-This civil revision application is preferred against the order in appeal upholding the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad. 2. The petitioner contends that the appellate Court had not considered in its judgment the following point at all which were advanced on behalf of the petitioner viz : (a) The point contains inadequate pleading regarding the personal requirement of the landlord. (b) As a result the landlord was able to improve upon his case from time to time. (c) The trial Court did not grant him time to lead further evidence regarding the fact that his plot was partially acquired. 3. He further attacks the judgment on the ground that the learned Judge has not properly understood the meaning of "alternative house" mentioned in section 15 (2)(vi) of the Hyderabad Rent Control and Eviction Act. 1954 and had consequently proceeded to appraise the evidence on the wrong interpretation thereof. It was then discovered that this ground though taken in memo of appeal is not taken up in the pleadings. The parties, therefore, agreed that the matter can proceed as if this ground was included in the plaint, particularly as the evidence on the comparative hardship and this ground is bound to be common to certain extent. 4. As far as the contention regarding the inadequacy of pleadings, improving upon the story and not being allowed to lead evidence are concerned. I see no substance in them. If pleadings were inadequate it was for defendant to apply for particulars, he not having done so takes the consequences. Similarly, it cannot be said that the plaintiff improved upon the story. The evidence amounts only to the plaintiff giving detailed particulars. As regards the defendant not being allowed to lead evidence no injustice has been caused to him inasmuch as before the appellate Court the matter has proceeded on the admitted basis that the original area acquired by the defendant/petitioner was 25 X 80 ft. out of which 45 ft. having been acquired he is left only with 25 X 35 ft. This is position having been accepted on behalf of the plaintiff, no evidence was necessary on that point. If this was contested it is quite possible that the appellate Court might have remanded the matter back on this ground. out of which 45 ft. having been acquired he is left only with 25 X 35 ft. This is position having been accepted on behalf of the plaintiff, no evidence was necessary on that point. If this was contested it is quite possible that the appellate Court might have remanded the matter back on this ground. He has not done so because in view of the admissions of facts which the defendant desired to prove, further evidence was unnecessary. 5. I must point out that though the Courts below have gone into the question of comparative hardship, the learned advocates for the parties have failed to point out any provision in the Act which requires this to be done. The ground for eviction, under section 15 (3) (a)(iii) in case of nonresidential house is that the landlord is not occupying for purpose of a business which he is carrying on, a non-residential house which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled, the question of consideration of comparative hardship arises only when the claim for possession is based on section 15 (3)(c) i. e. when the landlord is in possession of the portion of a house and the landlord requires possession of the portion of the tenant. 6. This brings me to the meaning of what can be said to the "alternative house". It must be borne in mind that the premises in question is a business premises viz; a shop in which photographic business is carried on. Admittedly, the defendant has acquired some premises elsewhere. There is no evidence at all as to what is the nature of the new premises i.e. what it consists of, how many rooms, how many floors and similar other particulars. The burden is obviously on the plaintiff to establish that the accommodation is an alternate accommodation. The alternative house must mean when a premises is used for residential purpose, adequate alternative accommodation for residence; when the premises are used for business purpose adequate alternative accommodation f0f carrying on of similar business; in case the accommodation is such as can be used for both residence and business, accommodation sufficient for both the purposes. The alternative house must mean when a premises is used for residential purpose, adequate alternative accommodation for residence; when the premises are used for business purpose adequate alternative accommodation f0f carrying on of similar business; in case the accommodation is such as can be used for both residence and business, accommodation sufficient for both the purposes. For considering this question, it will be necessary to have before the Court evidence of sum total of the residential and business accommodations originally available to the tenant to compare the same with the new accommodation which he has acquired as also the reason for acquiring new premises. It is possible that the new larger accommodation may have been acquired by the tenant for residence because of enlargement of the family or otherwise increase in requirements and therefore, arithmetical comparison alone will not be sufficient. The Court must also bear in mind that a tenant cannot necessarily be compelled to convert residential premises into business. When a business has been carried on for years, question of goodwill will also arise. The Court, therefore, must consider whether the defendant should be compelled to use part of the new premises for business purpose. 7. As already mentioned there is no pleading for possession on this ground and consequently no issue has been raised. The advocates appearing for the parties agree that such a ground may be added in the pleadings and issue raised. However, as the parties have not led adequate evidence for want of pleadings and issue, it is necessary that the matter should be remanded back on .his point. Since I am remanding the matter the amendment of the plaint need not be carried out here but will be carried out in the appellate Court below. The amendment will be confined to the ground under section 15 (2) (vi). The defendant will be at liberty to file supplemental written statement. 8. I must also refer to another aspect of the matter. The learned District Judge in his judgment has observed as follows: "One more witness named Vijay Boagde has been examined by the respondent in support of his say. This witness, Vijay is a neighbour of the appellant and according to him, defendant can easily accommodate his studio in the front portion of his house. He seems to be an independent witness and I see no reason to discard his version on this point. This witness, Vijay is a neighbour of the appellant and according to him, defendant can easily accommodate his studio in the front portion of his house. He seems to be an independent witness and I see no reason to discard his version on this point. The respondent is having his shop in rented premises and 1 feel, his requirement is bonafide". In my view it is the duty of the Court to arrive at its own conclusion regarding whether a studio can be accommodated in the portion of the house. He must also apply his mind to the fact as to what area will remain for the residential purpose after such occupation and adequacy thereof. This is something which cannot be delegated to a witness. It must be ascertained on the basis of facts proved such as the extent of old and present areas. Instead of doing this, he had simply relied on the opinion of witness who may be an independent witness but this is not permitted. This will be borne in mind while deciding the matter on remand. 9. In the circumstances, the order in appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate Court to consider whether the accommodation is an alternative house i. e. adequate alternate accommodation or not. The Court will consider the factors mentioned above and other relevant factors as may be pointed out by parties to arrive at the conclusion as to availability of alternative accommodation. The appellate Court will be at liberty, if it so deems fit, to permit the parties to lead further evidence for this purpose. The matter may be disposed of by the appellate Court itself without any further remand. 10. As regards the claim based on section 15 (3) (a) (iii) the question whether a landlord can obtain possession if he is already in possession of a rented premises will also have to be decided by the appellate Court. The parties may be allowed to lead evidence, if necessary, on this point also. 11. The matter be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 3 months from receipt of record and proceedings by the appellate Court. The record and writ to be sent forthwith after the judgment is signed. 12. Rule absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 13. 11. The matter be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 3 months from receipt of record and proceedings by the appellate Court. The record and writ to be sent forthwith after the judgment is signed. 12. Rule absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 13. In view of the order in Civil Revision Application, the C. A. is rejected with no order as to costs.