the plaint or in the oral evidence, which would show that the premises are required for residential use. Thus, the case of the residential use has been considered in the absence of pleadings. The question of leading any evidence when there is no pleading does not arise. The Courts below, therefore, could not have accepted the case of the Respondent/Original Plaintiff and decreed the Suit in its entirety. Even with regard to the residential user, this is not a case of the premises being sought from the tenant for using it as a residence. The daughters of the Respondent/Original Plaintiff are claimed to be the coowners and, thus, if their need has to be taken into consideration, it is not correct or rather a erroneous finding. If the Respondent/Original Plaintiff states that the daughters are willing to share the premises, then, it is not her need alone. She was residing on the first floor of the building along with one unmarried daughter Jeniffer and other married daughter Nalini together with her husband and children. She has adequate premises to house all of them. That is how and being aware of all this, that she says that she wants to set up a business of a eating house, that the premises were required for residence could not be established and this case was introduced solely to seek eviction of the Applicants/Original Defendants is, therefore, established.
