JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 115, CPC against the order dated 23-7-97 passed by the learned Addl Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 54/92 thereby rejecting the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for allowing amendment in his written statement. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner, inter alia, pleading his reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises which is a shop, sought decree for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises which is being seriously contested by the latter. The trial court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues arising there from and, consequently, recorded evidence of both the parties and, at the fag end of the trial, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 R. 17 CPC requesting for permission to allow amendment in his written statement by way of addition of Para 7(a) pleading that the plaintiff-non-petitioner has constructed a new shop over the ground-floor in the first storey and another in the second storey during the pendency of the suit which are still lying vacant and in case Nand Lal, who is son of the plaintiff, is intending and desirous to start any business for which, allegedly, the suit premises is required, he has already constructed and acquired accommodation by way of acquisition and availability of two shops, as above and, as a result, the alleged need and necessity of a shop stands wiped off. Since both these shops, newly constructed and presently lying vacant, came into being raised during the pendency of the suit and were not in existence at the time of the institution of the suit and, therefore, it was requested that since this incident happened subsequent to the institution of the suit by the plaintiff and so also after the written statement of the defendant-petitioner was filed and, resultantly, consequential amendment has been sought for. 3. This application of the defendant-petitioner has been hotly contested pleading there against that there did not arise any question of new construction of any shop either in the first or in the second storey of the building in the ground-floor on which the suit premises is situated and that the same are existing in the same condition in which they did at the time of institution of the suit itself and the defendant has wrongly described these rooms as shops. Therefore, it was clearly denied that there did exist any alternative accommodation for running business either in the first or in the second storey of the premises. It was also pleaded that since the trial of the suit was on the verge of completion and, accordingly, this prayer for amendment in the written statement was made solely with an ulterior motive of unduly protracting and delaying the disposal of the suit. 4. The learned trial judge, vide his impugned order, while holding that two rooms, as are pleaded by the plaintiff-non-petitioner are not proved to have been constructed during the pendency of the suit. At the same time, it has been further concluded that two vacant small rooms of the size of 7" x 7" each were existing and the same were neither shops nor were meant for the same purpose and, therefore, the plaintiff-non-petitioner continued to be in reasonable and bona fide need of the suit premises and, therefore, existence of one room each on the first and second storey of the building did not amount to such a subsequent event having come in being so as to adversely affect the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and, resultantly, it was further held that the application of the defendant-petitioner, being far from bona fide, necessitating no amendment in the written statement, was moved fora sole object and further protracting and delaying the trial, resulting in its dismissal giving rise to the presentation of the present petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused and considered the legality and propriety of the impugned order and, this petition having been admitted to be heard and disposed of on merit, the learned counsel for the parties have also been heard at length. 6. The facts giving rise to the present petition are, in substance, not at variance and in dispute and, as a result, there is no denial of the fact that the plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises, which is a shop and the defendant is running his business in the same, pleading reasonable and bona fide necessity of the same for her son to carry on business in the same. 7. 7. The defendant alleged that, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff raised new constructions in the first and second storeys of the same building and, at present, one room each in the first and the second storeys of the building are in existence. They are newly constructed and it all happened during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff has seriously disputed it that any new construction was raised during the pendency of the suit and instead she has maintained that both the rooms so existing in the upper storeys of the building were in existence in the same condition when the suit was instituted by her, as above. She further pleaded that they are not meant for running business therein and they are not shops and instead they are rooms to be used for any purpose other than business. 8. It may also be appreciated that, usually, no windows are opened/kept in the shops wherein commercial activities are transacted. Besides, the defendant-petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that both the premises situated in the upper storeys were not rooms meant for any purpose other than carrying out commercial activities therein and that any permission from competent authority was obtained for construction of shops. Besides, it may also be appreciated that suit premises are situated in the ground-floor and, as is the common knowledge, barring metropolitan or big cities, in absence of multipurpose/departmental stores, ordinarily business-men do not run their business in the first or second storey. The prospective customers usually haunt, frequent and approach the shops which are situated in the ground-floor and are easily and conveniently accessible without extra wastage of time and labour. Not only this, when the plaintiff has specifically come with a case that the suit premises situated in the ground-floor of the building is required by her for the business to be transacted by her son Nand Lal since she is the owner and lessor of the suit premises, she has a right to opt for any suitable and convenient premises in which the proposed business can be economically and profitably carried out without any loss from the competitor business-men. 9. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision reported in AIR 1992 Raj p.6, and Ibrahim Khan v. Bhim Singh Rathore,1994 DNJ (Raj) 560 which was also cited before the trial court and taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge as well, has contended and submitted that, while dealing with an application under Order 6, R. 17, CPC, the Court has to see whether such an application has been made bona fide and, in other words, he is not solely motivated with an ulterior motive to delay the decision of the suit, no other consideration is material for allowing such an application in respect of the amendment so sought tor just decision of the case on the ground of any subsequent events having happened during the pendency of the suit as is the present case. No merited adjudication on the truthfulness of the facts bearing upon the subsequent event is called for as held in Suresh Chand v. State of Raj., 1990(1) RLR 42 . 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner, while controverting the defence plea, maintained that existence of both the rooms is not denied and further maintained that both the rooms so existed in the first and second: storeys respectively, measure in an area of 7" x 7" and the same are without gate and are not meant for being used as shops nor it is possible, and, therefore, when there is absolutely no ground to hold that, as pleaded by the defendant-petitioner, both the rooms existing in the upper storeys were constructed newly subsequent to the institution of the suit, amounting to happening of any subsequent event during the pendency of the suit and, besides, both the rooms as submitted above, were never meant for being used for running of any business therein or being let-out for any commercial purposes and the same were suitable for carrying out business by Nand Lal son of the petitioner and, as a result, the amendment so sought for in the written statement has been disallowed by the learned trial judge and the impugned order is legal, proper, just and regular and suffers from no infirmity or illegality warranting any interference in this petition. 11. 11. There is a bald statement in the form of pleadings sought to be inserted by way of amendment and consequential addition of new Para 7(a) in the written statement itself that both the rooms were newly constructed but the defendant could not adduce prima facie evidence or bring forward any material to conclude that both the rooms were constructed during the pendency of the suit itself, meaning thereby that the same did not exist at the time of institution of the suit itself, amounting to an event happening during the pendency of the suit itself. Since, as also rightly held and concluded by the learned trial judge, such a construction could have only been raised with the prior permission of the legal authorities, i.e., Municipal Board/Council and the purpose also could have been clarified before such authorities by the plaintiff for which a new construction was to be raised. There is none. On the contrary, the plaintiff has maintained that these rooms were in existence from time prior to the institution of the suit itself and the fact of their existence was within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner. Therefore, on the face of clear and unambiguous denial by the defendant and there being no circumstance to sustain the plea of the defendant-petitioner that any such new construction was raised only during the pendency of the suit itself, otherwise the defendant could have come forward with a similar prayer for amendment in the written statement itself at the earlier stage and, besides, he also did not allege the similar facts in sworn testimony given after the completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and, as a result, there is no mistake or any factual error as well as legal or jurisdictional infirmity or any material irregularity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge that the defendant-petitioner utterly failed to show that both the rooms so existing in the upper storey of the suit premises were constructed subsequent to the institution of the suit by the plaintiff and that the same were meant for business/commercial purposes and the same fulfilled the requirement of the plaintiff so as to use the same for starting business by her son Nand Lal. Since no room situated either in the first or in the second storey of the building can ordinarily be used for running shops and business therein and, therefore, in absence of other material or circumstances to show that Nand Lal, son of the plaintiff, could also alternatively use the vacant premises of the upper storeys for starting and running his business, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained that, firstly, both the rooms were newly constructed and, in case so desirous, the same could also be used as an alternative accommodation available for starting and running business by Nand Lal leaving no further reasonable and bona fide need and necessity for vacation of the suit premises from the use and occupation of the petitioner. 12. It is also be kept in mind that the plaintiff needs the devised premises for business of her son and hence it is entirely the right and discretion of the plaintiff alone to choose and opt for as to which is the premises which is the best suited for standing intended business. There is no similar between the suit premises and those situated in the first and second storeys from the point of view of economy, transport, storage, handling and dealing besides the quantum of business and the resulting profit therefrom. In view of the aforesaid resultant position, the proposed amendment in the written statement is necessitated for a just decision nor for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Besides, the admission of the plaintiff in reply to the amendment application regarding the existence of the two rooms in the upper storeys, this fact can be considered for or against while deciding the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises by the plaintiff either way along with other evidence and so also there is no need, in the aforesaid circumstances for formal amendment in the written statement necessitating a de novo exercise. 13. Therefore, the decision relied upon and referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not clinch the issue as a result arrived at, as above. 14. 13. Therefore, the decision relied upon and referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not clinch the issue as a result arrived at, as above. 14. The petitioner also could not bring the best possible evidence in the form of sanctioned site-plan as well as prior sanction for raising any new construction to conclude that both the rooms came into existence after institution of the suit and not prior to the same, as is the case of the plaintiff-non-petitioner. Besides, there are no grounds to believe that both the rooms which were lying open without any safety in absence of doors fitted either in the gate or shops therein, were meant for being used as shops. Besides, there could not have been any justification for opening windows in the said premises in case they were meant to be used for the purposes of running any business in the same. Lastly, even if there existed two rooms separately in the upper storeys which measured lesser in area than the suit shop measuring 10' x 10', the same being situated in the ground-floor itself, does not fulfil the reasonable necessity of the plaintiff leaving no further bona fide need for vacation of the suit premises. 15. As a result of above discussion, the impugned order suffers from no jurisdictional or legal or factual infirmity occasioning failure of justice and, on the contrary, since the amendment prayed for by the petitioner ex facie appears to have been moved with an oblique motive to further delay and frustrate the early disposal of the suit itself which is on the verge of final disposal and, therefore, the impugned order did not warrant any interference. 16. Consequently, this petition being wholly devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. The learned trial judge is directed to dispose of the suit finally at the earliest possible without being affected by above observations any more.Revision dismissed. *******