Honble MITAL, C.J.– This is tenants Revision against an order of the trial court allowing amendment of the plaint at the instance of landlord to add a fresh ground of ejectment in the suit. (2). In the suit, as filed originally, two grounds for ejectment were pleaded, (1) default in payment of rent and (2) personal necessity in regard to the com- mercial premises in dispute for one of the brothers of the landlord to carry on commercial work in the premises. The suit was contested by the tenant on both the grounds and regarding personal necessity, it was pleaded by him that rent note was executed between the parties within five years of the filing of the suit and by virtue of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter for short `the Act) , a suit in regard to commercial premises on the ground of personal necessity is not maintainable within five years of the execution of the rent note or the agreement of tenancy and the issue was framed and thereafter the landlord withdrew the ground of personal necessity and the case proceeded on the ground of default only. (3). After five years lapsed from the date of creation of the tenancy, the landlord filed an application under O.6 R.17 of the CPC to amend the plaint to include the ground of ejectment on the ground of personal necessity of two brothers including the previous brother, mentioned earlier. That application has been allowed and this is tenants Revision against that order. (4). After hearing counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the court below erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the amendment on the peculiar facts of this case. Section 14(3) of the Act proceeds with a non-obstante clause starting with the words, "Notwithstanding any thing contained in any law or contract, no suit for eviction from the premises let out for commercial or business purposes shall lie against a tenant on the ground set forth in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 13 before the expiry of five years from the date the premises were let out to the tenant". (5). The bar is in the filing of the suit. (5). The bar is in the filing of the suit. If amendment is allowed, it will relate back to the date of filing of the suit and suit would still be within five years of the tenancy. Accordingly it will be just and proper that the landlord files a separate suit on the ground of personal necessity and to that suit question of exception contained in Section 14(3) of the Act will not apply. There will be no multiplicity of proceedings either because the first suit would be confined to the point whether the tenant committed any default in payment of rent or not, whereas in the fresh suit, there will be a separate ground which will be tried and decided independently of the first suit. (6). Accordingly the Revision is allowed, the order of court below is set aside and the application for amendment is dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff to file a separate suit on the ground of personal necessity.