JUDGMENT This appeal involves a crucial question that whether the lower appellate Court contrary to the finding of the trial Court about absence of bona fide with regard to requirement under section l2 (1)( f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act can grant a decree for eviction on its own notions beyond the pleadings as well as case projected in evidence. 1. This appeal is by the tenant against judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court directing thereby eviction of the defendant appellant from the suit shop. It has been admitted and heard on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the finding of the learned first appellate Court that the suit shop is still required for plaintiff's own business and he has no alternative suitable accommodation for the same in his possession inspite of possession of adjacent shop of same dimensions having been received by him from another tenant, is vitiated in the absence of specific plea to that effect by the respondent and also for want of challenge of the finding recorded by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 5.7.2004." 2. Facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent with allegations that the defendant is tenant in the shop owned by the plaintiff. He was inducted into tenancy @ 250/- p.m., vide rent note dated 17.1.1996. Plaintiff is a poor labourer performing his work with the aid of hand-cart. He, bona fide, needs the suit shop to start his grocery business. Suit shop is in dilapidated condition. Its walls are quite weak and have developed cracks, which may fall down at any moment. It cannot be repaired without eviction. Defendant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 17.1.1996. A demand notice was issued on 31.7.2000, which was served upon him. Despite notice, defendant did not pay the rent nor did he vacate the suit shop, hence the suit. 3. Defendant-appellant submitted his written statement refuting thereby the claim of the plaintiff. It has been stated that the plaintiff suppressed the adjacent property belonging to him. It is further averred that the defendant did not execute the alleged rent-note dated 17.1.1996. On the contrary suit shop was obtained on rent w.e.f. 10.4.1992 @ 200/- per month as rent and Rs.50/- per month as electricity charges. It has been stated that the plaintiff suppressed the adjacent property belonging to him. It is further averred that the defendant did not execute the alleged rent-note dated 17.1.1996. On the contrary suit shop was obtained on rent w.e.f. 10.4.1992 @ 200/- per month as rent and Rs.50/- per month as electricity charges. Defendant is not in arrears of rent, rather he has been paying the rent timely. The alleged rent note dated 17.1.1996 is a forged document. As regards alleged need, it is averred that the plaintiff has two more shops. Need of the plaintiff has accordingly been denied by the defendant. In special plea, defendant averred that the plaintiff disconnected the electricity of the suit shop on 21.3.2001. On 24.3.2001, new electric meter was installed with the consent of the plaintiff. Money order issued to the plaintiff of rent @ Rs.250/p.m. was not accepted. Defendant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,500/- in the Court as rent w.e.f. April 2001 to January 2002. Prior to April 2001, there was no balance towards rent. On account of disconnection of electricity, rate of rent is liable to be fixed. 4. After recording the evidence, learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on 26.8.2003 on the ground under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. However, other grounds for eviction were declined. Aggrieved by it, Civil Appeal No.23-A/04 was submitted. In this appeal, an application for amendment was submitted that the plaintiff had acquired vacant possession of adjacent shop from his tenant one Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor. In view of the subsequent event, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek eviction. This application was opposed on the ground that the said shop was quite small and was insufficient to run the business of grocery. Application for amendment was allowed by the learned lower appellate Court vide order dated 11.5.2004. Consequently, the learned lower appellate Judge remitted back the matter to the trial Court with a direction to allow the plaintiff to make consequential amendment and to record evidence after raising additional issue in respect of amended version. 5. Application for amendment was allowed by the learned lower appellate Court vide order dated 11.5.2004. Consequently, the learned lower appellate Judge remitted back the matter to the trial Court with a direction to allow the plaintiff to make consequential amendment and to record evidence after raising additional issue in respect of amended version. 5. Learned trial Judge raised issue No.6 to the following effect: "Did bona fide need in respect of the suit shop cease to exist on account of acquiring vacant possession of the shop from Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor." Thereafter, the evidence was recorded and the learned trial Judge vide his order dated 5.7.2004 held that the shop vacated by Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor is equal in size to that of suit shop and, thus, the plaintiff has acquired vacant possession of alternative non-residential accommodation of equal size. He held that the plaintiff has no bona fide need in view of subsequent acquisition of adjacent alternative shop. Finding of the learned trial Judge was so received by the learned lower appellate Court on 12.7.2004. Case was fixed for final arguments on 28.7.2004. Plaintiff did not submit objections to the findings of the trial Court under rule 26 of Order 41 of CPC. Learned lower appellate Judge after hearing the arguments did not set aside the finding about the shop vacated by Mwhtaq Khan, Choice Tailor but set out a new case that the plaintiff bona fide needs to run his business by combining the suit shop and the shop vacated by Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor because the shop vacated by Choice Tailor was insufficient. Accordingly, the appeal was declined and the decree of the trial Court for eviction under section 12 (1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court, hence, the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the parties made their respective submissions in respect of the substantial question of law already stated hereinabove. 7. Cardinal principle of civil litigation is that it proceeds on pleadings of parties and proof thereof except the facts and law which may be taken judicial note of. Rule 1 of Order 4 of CPC lays down that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint. Order 6 provides about the pleadings. 7. Cardinal principle of civil litigation is that it proceeds on pleadings of parties and proof thereof except the facts and law which may be taken judicial note of. Rule 1 of Order 4 of CPC lays down that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint. Order 6 provides about the pleadings. According to its rule 2 every pleading shall contain and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Rule 7 further lays down that no pleading shall, except by way of amendment raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous. pleadings of the party pleading the same. Exception is carved out by virtue of rule 13.which lays down that neither party need in any pleading allege any matter of fact which the law presumes in his favour. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India long back in the case of M/s. Trojan and Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar [ AIR 1953 SC 235 ], has held that it is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint the Court held was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for, more so, when no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case. 9. Thereafter, in the case of Nagubai Ammal and others v. B. Shama Rao and others [ AIR 1956 SC 593 ], the Supreme Court of India in para 12 has observed that evidence let in no issues on which the parties actually went to trial should not be made the foundation for decision of another and different issue, which was not present to the minds of the parties and on which they had no opportunity of adducing evidence. 10. Suit for eviction was initially decreed by the learned trial Judge on ground under section 12(l)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was found that the plaintiff needed bona fide the suit shop for starting grocery business therein as pleaded in the plaint. 10. Suit for eviction was initially decreed by the learned trial Judge on ground under section 12(l)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was found that the plaintiff needed bona fide the suit shop for starting grocery business therein as pleaded in the plaint. During pendency of civil appeal under section 96 of the CPC, an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC, was submitted by the defendant with allegation that the plaintiff has acquired vacant possession of the adjacent shop from tenant Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor and his alleged need stands satisfied Amendment was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court to decide the issue raised by way of amendment after granting opportunity to the plaintiff to make consequential amendment vide order dated 11.5.2004. Plaint was thereafter amended by alleging that the shop vacated by Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor is quite small and is insufficient for grocery business. The allegation of the plaintiff with regard to the alleged bona fide need in paragraphs 3 and 3-A are to the effect that the plaintiff performs labour work with the aid of handcart. He bona fide required the suit shop to start grocery business and he has no other alternative non-residential premises of his own in the city of Shivpuri. By way of adding paragraph 3-A in the plaint it has been admitted that Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor has delivered vacant possession of the adjacent shop to the plaintiff. However, shop vacated by Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor, according to the plaintiff, is too small and is insufficient to start and run grocery business in it. 11. In order to appreciate more effectively the pleadings made by the plaintiff with regard to the claim for eviction on the ground of alleged bona fide need under section l2 (1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, I feel it proper to reproduce verbatim paragraphs 3 and 3-A of the plaint: 12. From perusal of the aforesaid plaint allegations it is crystal clear that specific case of the plaintiff was that he needed bona fide the suit shop to start and run the grocery business. While admitting the acquisition of vacant possession of the adjacent shop, his case is that it is too small for his proposed business of grocery. From perusal of the aforesaid plaint allegations it is crystal clear that specific case of the plaintiff was that he needed bona fide the suit shop to start and run the grocery business. While admitting the acquisition of vacant possession of the adjacent shop, his case is that it is too small for his proposed business of grocery. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it could be the case of the plaintiff that he needed the suit shop as well as adjacent shop and he proposes to start the proposed business of grocery after joining both the shops together. On the contrary, his specific averment as contained in paragraph 3-A was that the adjacent shop vacated by Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor was too small and insufficient to start and run the proposed grocery business. Even in the chief examination recorded in the form of affidavit after incorporation of amendment, in the plaint as well as written statement, plaintiff has stated on oath that he is in receipt of vacant possession of the adjacent shop from Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor, which is too small and the plaintiff cannot conveniently run the proposed business of grocery in such adjacent shop 'on account of insufficiency. Thus, additional chief examination of the plaintiff was also not suggestive of the fact that the plaintiff intends to start the proposed business of grocery in the suit shop as well as adjacent shop by clubbing them together. On perusal of his entire examination, i.e., chief examination as well as cross-examination recorded after remand, it is clear that the plaintiff has maintaind that he intends to start proposed business of grocery in the suit shop and the same is needed by him bona fide and that the shop vacated by Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor is too small for the proposed business of grocery. Thus, there is no iota on record that the plaintiff intended to start the proposed business of grocery in both the shops by joining them together or otherwise and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the defendant-appellant was aware of the plaintiff's intention start the business of grocery in both the shops by joining together or otherwise. This is obviously a new case which has neither been pleaded nor proved by the plaintiff but has been made out by the learned lower appellate Judge while granting a decree for eviction on such ground beyond the case set up in the pleadings and evidence. It is true that the pleadings should not be construed technically but should be construed liberally. It is equally true that pleadings have their own importance as observed by the Supreme Court of India from time to time in various decisions (supra). In the absence of specific pleading and proof it cannot be said that the defendant knew the plaintiff's case to seek eviction on the ground that he needed both the shops together and intended to start business of grocery in both the shops by joining them together or otherwise. 13. In the case of M/s. Trojan and Co. (supra), it has been clearly observed by the Supreme Court that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Specific averments contained in paragraphs 3 and 3A of the plaint have been already reproduced above in order to appreciate correctly the pleadings. Plaintiff could have availed the opportunity to make consequential amendment by pleading that looking to the size of the suit shop and adjacent shop he needed both the shops to start the proposed business of grocery. He did not choose to do so. Instead, his specific stand was that he though has received the vacant possession of the adjacent shop from one Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor, same being too small for grocery business, he cannot conveniently start and run the proposed grocery business in it. Plaintiff did not at all plead and establish that his need was in respect of both the shops simultaneously by joining them together or otherwise. Instead of opting for it, he maintained about insufficiency of the subsequently acquired non-residential accommodation and insisted for eviction of the defendant -appellant from the suit shop for the alleged need of grocery business. After remand vide order dated 11.5.2004 learned trial Judge raised Issue No.6 that did bona fide need in respect of the suit shop cease to exist on account of acquiring vacant. possession of the shop from Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor. After remand vide order dated 11.5.2004 learned trial Judge raised Issue No.6 that did bona fide need in respect of the suit shop cease to exist on account of acquiring vacant. possession of the shop from Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor. In the evidence recorded pursuant to the remand order, plaintiff examined himself and witnesses, namely, Narsingh Joshi and Babulal Yaday. All these three witnesses have stated on oath with consistency that the shop vacated by. Mushtaq Khan, Choice Tailor, is too small and is insufficient for the proposed business of grocery of the plaintiff. Thus, there is no iota in the evidence of the plaintiff that it was eyer a case of him that the plaintiff intended or needed for his proposed grocery business, both the shops simultaneously. Even, in the cross-examination performed on behalf of the plaintiff on the statements of the defendant as well as his witnesses recorded on oath after remand, there is no such suggestion that the proposed business of grocery would be started in both the adjoining shops after joining them together or otherwise. It is also clear from the finding remitted by the learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 5.7.2004 that the shop vacated by Mustaq Khan, Choice Tailor, is equal in size to that of the suit shop and thus the 'plaintiff having acquired alternative non-residential premises of the same size, his alleged bona fide need ceased to exist. This finding was called by the learned lower appellate Court vide its remand order dated 11.5.2004. Under rule 26 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff could have submitted objections before the lower appellate Court. No such objections were submitted before the lower appellate Court or even before this Court. Plaintiff-respondent even at the said stage did not choose to submit that both the adjoining shops were needed for his proposed grocery business. Thus, the need of the plaintiff in the light of the pleadings and material on record could not have been considered for both the adjacent shops for his proposed grocery business after joining them together or even otherwise. 14. Apart from the aforesaid, it may be seen that finding of fact remitted by the trial Court vide its order dated 5.7.2004 and received by the lower appellate Court on 8.4.2004 was not challenged by submitting objections under rule 26 of CPC. 14. Apart from the aforesaid, it may be seen that finding of fact remitted by the trial Court vide its order dated 5.7.2004 and received by the lower appellate Court on 8.4.2004 was not challenged by submitting objections under rule 26 of CPC. Specific finding of the trial Judge vide his order dated 5.7 .2Q04 is that the shop received by the plaintiff after institution of the suit from Mustaq Khan in vacant condition is equal in size to that of the suit shop and the alleged bona fide need of the plaintiff ceased to exist on account of having occupied it. This finding has not been reversed by the learned lower appellate Judge and the same is not open to attack in this second appeal except on ground envisaged in section 100 of CPC. No attempt ever has been made by the plaintiff to challenge the said finding in accordance with law. Same is, therefore, binding on this Court. I may here successfully refer to Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1979 Raj. 87 (Chatar Lai v. Ramdas). 15. Suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted on the basis of the alleged bona fide need in respect of the suit shop alone with proposed dimensions and size as averred in the plaint paragraph 3, stated hereinabove. Suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge. During pendency of the civil appeal, plaintiff obtained vacant possession of adjacent nonresidential shop from Mustaq Khan Choice Tailor. This was admitted by the plaintiff vide paragraph 3-A of the plaint added subsequently. His specific case was that the shop so acquired in vacant condition was too small and the plaintiff would not be able to run the proposed business of grocery in it on account of insufficiency. He did not plead that he intends to start and run the proposed business of grocery in both the adjacent shops. Instead, he maintained that the shop so acquired by him subsequently in vacant condition is too small and insufficient and that the plaintiff still needed the suit shop for his proposed grocery business. He did not plead that he intends to start and run the proposed business of grocery in both the adjacent shops. Instead, he maintained that the shop so acquired by him subsequently in vacant condition is too small and insufficient and that the plaintiff still needed the suit shop for his proposed grocery business. Learned trial Judge while remitting the finding after remand found that the shop subsequently acquired by the plaintiff was equal in size to that of the suit shop and the alleged bona fide need of the plaintiff ceased to exist on account of plaintiff's obtaining vacant possession of the adjacent shop. No challenge was made by the plaintiff to this finding. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad [1981 JLJ 716= AIR 1981 SC 1711 ], has observed that finding of fact ignoring incontrovertible admitted position which would not-suit the plaintiff if upheld would be travesty of justice. The burden being on the plaintiff to show that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation for carrying on the business which he wanted to start in the suit premises, it was for the plaintiff to show that he had not acquired possession from firm Goraldas Parmanand. Alternatively, the plaintiff should have shown that the said adjacent accommodation was not reasonably suitable for the business he wanted to start. In the aforesaid case, the plaintiff rightly or wrongly took a stand that he not only wanted suit premises but also the adjoining premises of which he had obtained possession for starting his business. In the case in hand, no such stand was adopted by the plaintiff as is clear from plaint's averments paragraphs No.3 and 3-A. 17. In the case of P. Venkateshwarlu v. Motor and General Traders [ AIR 1975 SC 1409 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed long back: "If a fact, arising after the lis has come to Court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the Tribunal, it cannot blink at it ·or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice." Proposition has been further affirmed that: "....for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed." Thus, the Court of appeal is held entitled to take into consideration cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings. 18. In a later decision of the apex Court in the case of Prataprai N.