JUDGMENT This appeal is by the tenant against the impugned order dated 25.2.93 passed by the first appellate Court remanding the case to the trial Court for trial of the suit on the amended pleadings of the plaintiff-landlord. The only fact necessary for deciding this appeal against the order of remand is that the plaintiff filed an eviction suit setting up a composite need for residence and for his business. During the pendency of the suit, since the adjoining tenanted portion was vacated, the need for residence was satisfied. The plaintiff-landlord continued with the suit for his need for business. The learned Judge of the trial Court, by its judgment dated 19.9.90 dismissed the suit by recording a finding that the accommodation in suit was purely residential and could not be got vacated for non-residential need. The landlord preferred an appeal against the dismissal of his suit and in the appellate Court made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of his plaint. Amendment in the plaint was proposed on certain subsequent events. It is sought to be pleaded that the landlord and his wife both are Asthama patients. Son of the landlord was going to he married. On these two subsequent events, the accommodation in suit was required for the residential need of the landlord and the members of his family. The first appellate Court, by the order impugned, allowed the application of the landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment and remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding the case on the amended pleadings. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant contends before me that the remand on the basis of the subsequent events, pending appeal, was not at all justified. There was an attempt on the part of the landlord to change the vary foundation of the suit by setting-up the residential need instead of non-residential need originally pleaded by him in the suit. The learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, submitted that on the basis of the subsequent events, under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellate Court was competent to remand the matter. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for parties, in my opinion, the appeal deserves to succeed and the remand order deserves to be set aside. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for parties, in my opinion, the appeal deserves to succeed and the remand order deserves to be set aside. It is true that the subsequent events under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC can be taken note of in eviction proceedings; but no subsequent events can be allowed to be urged in appeal which are inconsistent with the pleadings already made in the original suit. In the instant case, the original plea raised by the landlord was to begin with the composite need and the appeal could have been confined to that need. On the amendment to the plaint for the first time in appeal, totally a different need was sought to be pleaded, based on subsequent events. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit was not found to be erroneous by the first appellate Court. On the basis of the subsequent events, therefore, the landlord could have been relegated to a fresh suit. The power of remand cannot be exercised by the appellate Court to allow the plaintiff to set up anew case and to get a trial on a completely changed plea. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of remand dated 25.2.90 is hereby set aside. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.