1. - Heard Mr. M.B.L. Bhargava, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Mr. C.L. Agarwal for the plaintiff respondent who has entered a caveat in this appeal at some length.

2. Both the Courts have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the defendant appellant having acquired vacant possession of his bungalow which was suitable for his residence, he is liable to be evicted under sub-section (1) of Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act. This finding is being challenged on behalf of the appellant on the ground that neither there was averment to the effect that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of accommodation suitable for his residence nor there is any issue framed on that point. It is, therefore, argued that in the absence of an averment in the pleadings to that effect and further in the absence of an issue in that behalf no amount of evidence led in the case can be looked into as the decision of the case cannot be based on ground outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant has referre