Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is directed against the order of the Learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. The order of the District Judge is dated 12-4-1982 made in CRP. No. 134/1979 on his file. Thatrevision was by the landlord who had failed to secure eviction of his tenant from the petition premises in the Court of the Munsiff, Udipi. The Learned Munsiff in HRC.No.78/1976 on his file declined to grant an eviction on the ground that the landlord had not established reasonable requirement though bona fides were not doubted. In the result, he had rejected the petition. Therefore, the landlord's revision before the District Judge. The Learned District Judge mainly took into consideration the oral evidence of the landlord in regard to his intention to set-up one of his sons who was disabled and not very bright in studies, in an independent business which would give him some occupation as well as income. Having regard to the totality of circumstances he did not agree with the Learned Munsiff and came to the conclusion that there was genuine requirement by the land-lord to set up his son in an independent business which lie would be financing. In that circumstance he allowed the petition recording a finding independently that in Udipi Town there were enough places where the tenant could find alternative accommodation if he made sufficient effort. In the result, he allowed the eviction petition and directed possession to be given to the landlord of the petition premises.
2. Smt. G.N. Sudha appearing for Mr. G.S. Visweswara Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant-revision petitioner in this Court has strenuously contended that the District Judge erred in believing the versionput forward by the land-lord who did not disclose anything in his pleadings about starting a sweet meat stall for his son. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of D'Souza-v.-Rama Rao, 1978 (l) KLJ 235 it was contended that in the absence of specific pleading as to the nature of the business, the source of finance,experience in the line of business proposed, the Court ought not to grant the eviction, This Court in the said case ruled that where a landlord required non-residential accommodation in the occupation of the tenant for the purpose of starting a business, the landlord must mention in his petition the details of his requirements. That expression 'details of his requirements' does not necessarily in all cases include the nature of business he intends to start in the non-residential premises. In fact, the Learned Judge in the said decision has pointed out that evidence led contrary to the pleadings should not be accepted. In that case, the pleadings were that the landlord needed the premises for starting trade in sports goods. But the evidence was that the business pro-posed to be carried on was in ready made garments. It was in that circumstance the Learned Judge observed that evidence had to be adduced only in conformity with the pleadings and Dot de hors of the pleadings. That is not an authority for the proposition that every specific detail should be set-out in the pleadings in regard to the type and nature of business that the landlord intends to carry on. Even if there is a general pleading that it is required to start his own business, one must look at the surrounding circumstance the experience the landlord has in a particular trade, his financial ability to do independent business and his skill to carry on that business. In the pleadings the land-lord petitioner had stated that he intended to provide bystarting an independent business for his disabled son who was not too bright. In the evidence he pointed out that he intended to provide a sweet meat stall which the son could manage as he knew how to keep the accounts of hotel transactions, as he had previous experience in that line. A perusal of the objection statement clearly indicates that the tenant understood the nature of business which the petitioner wanted to carry on. In fact, it has been admitted that the petitioner was once a prosperous hotelier who gave up running the hotel himself and leased out the hotel to others to run. If parties understood the pleading in a particular manner and went to trial on the basis of that understanding then question of want of pleadings and raising a specific issue in that behalf does not have the same significance or importance which it otherwise would have. (See - Nagu Bai -v.- B. Sharma Rao, : 1SCR451 ). I, therefore, find no substance in the contention advanced that evidence was adduced in regard to matters not pleaded.
3. In fact, there is no dispute that the landlord is quite well-off with sufficient income to start any business of his choice. Therefore, mere non-disclosure of the nature of business he wanted to start for his son in the petition premises, in my opinion, would not be fatal as in this case tenant understood that the petitioner intended to start a hotel business. In fact , the rest of the averments in the objection statement is such that he has averred that the disabled son is incompetent to run any business. Therefore, the essence of the case of the tenant was that the claim for starting a new business was spurious and not genuine. Consistently the Courts in India have held that the plea-dings are said to be adequate if the opposite party is able to meet the case made out in the pleadings. It is only when the pleadings are totally inadequate to meet the case, then pleadings will be held to be short of the requirement or inadequate. I do not think on the facts of this case thisCourt should come to the conclusion that there was any inadequacy of pleadings.
4. The District Judge has taken notice of the relationship that exists between the landlord and the tenant. The back-ground in which the tenant lived in the house of the land-lord. He has also taken notice of the fact that the tenant is prosperous in having his own business of a cycle repair shop in the petition premises as well as owning a taxi. These facts are not disputed. In comparing the mutual hardship he has held in favour of the landlord on the ground that Udipi Town has enough accommodation available for the business of the tenant to be shifted if only an attempt is made by the tenant to find such alternative accommodation. I, therefore, do not see that there is any failure by the District Judge to direct his mind to the comparative hard-ship which is a mandatory requirement under the Act.
5. It was further urged by Smt. Sudha, Learned Counsel, that the petitioner-landlord had adequate alternative accommodation for the purpose of starting a sweetmeat stall and therefore question of requiring this particular premises in the occupation of the tenant was not genuine. It is stated that he had constructed four new shop premises in the area which could have been used as sweetmeat stall. That was an event which occurred before the filing of the Petition and loses much significance, to afford ground to the tenant to show that he had or has suitable alternative accommodation, as it is not in dispute that those four new shop buildings were rented out.
6. It was next urged also that in the same premises the petitioner had four rooms which were being let out, one of which could be used as sweet meat stall. Admittedly, that is part of the business of the landlord himself i.e., to run a lodging house. One would be foolish to start a sweet meat stall in rooms which are used as lodging houses as rent fetched and the profits that will be made in sweet meat stall would not be the same. In any event Mr. M. Gopalakrishna Shetty Learned Counsel for the respondent, stated that these lodging house rooms were situated in the up-stairs and not accessible to the public to purchase sweets etc. I do not think the argument is well founded.
7. I do not see merit in the case made out for interference. Really no error of jurisdiction or error of law is pointed out beyond what is noticed above,
8. The petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.