As per case facts, the respondents (landlords) filed an eviction petition against the appellant (tenant) for a shop-room, citing bona fide requirement for their son to start a readymade garment ... business under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, section 10(3)(a)(3). The Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, and High Court all ruled in favor of the landlords. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing for the first time that the eviction order was unjustified because the landlords had not specifically pleaded all conditions for eviction as required by the Act, particularly concerning the non-occupation of other suitable non-residential accommodations.The question arose whether an eviction order could be upheld when the petition lacked specific pleadings for all statutory conditions, even if the facts supporting those conditions were evident in trial and the new objection was raised late.Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It acknowledged the flaw in pleadings but noted that the issue was not raised in lower courts or in the Special Leave Petition, being presented for the first time during argument. The Court found that the landlords had disclosed all relevant facts during the trial and presented a clear case for requiring the shop. Furthermore, the appellant did not claim they could provide new evidence if given a chance to amend pleadings, and the landlords' choice of the disputed shop was justified. The Court reiterated that while proper pleading is crucial, given the circumstances and the appellant's delayed objection, interfering with the eviction order was unwarranted.