Honble SHARMA, J.–The only question which arises for consideration in this revision is : Whether amendment made in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, during the pendency of the suit will relate back to the date of filing of suit or the proceedings on the new ground shall began from the date of fil-ing of amendment plaint ? (2). This question emerges in the circumstances set out below. (i) The plaintiff petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for eviction in respect of shop on March 18, 1986 against the defendant non-petitioner (for short the defendant) on the grounds of default in making payment of rent, material alteration and nuisance relying on a rent note executed on December 20, 1983. Suit premises indisputably was taken for commercial purposes. During the pendency of the suit an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint for incorporating ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of suit premises. The application was allowed by the trial court on July 11, 1995. The defendant preferred revision but it was dismissed by this court on Feb. 9, 1996. (ii) The plaintiff filed amended plaint and the defendant submitted written statement denying averments of the plaint. An objection with regard to maintainability of the suit was also raised by the defendant in view of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act). (iii) The trial court framed issues and decided issue No.5 D as preliminary issue. English translation of issue No.5 D is as under : ``Whether the plaintiffs suit filed on the ground of bonafide need,is not maintainable in view of Section 14(3) of the Act ? (iv) Vide order dated October 23, 1996, the trial court observed that disputed shop was taken on September 1, 1983 and relationship of land lord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant commenced from the said date. The suit was filed on March 18, 1986, admittedly within five years from the date of commencement of tenancy amendment was allowed on July 11, 1995 and amended plaint was filed on July 24, 1995 incorporating new ground of `bonafide necessity. The suit was filed on March 18, 1986, admittedly within five years from the date of commencement of tenancy amendment was allowed on July 11, 1995 and amended plaint was filed on July 24, 1995 incorporating new ground of `bonafide necessity. The said amendment was effective from the date of filing of the suit hence provisions of Section 14(3) of the Act were attracted and the suit was not maintainable. (v) Against this order present action for filing the revision has been resorted to. (3). It is necessary to advert first, to the provisions contained in Section 14(3) of the Act, which reads as under :- ``Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no suit for eviction from the premises let out for commercial or business pur- poses 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 of premises were let out to the tenant. A look at this Section 14(3) of the Act, reveals that it merely restricts eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. Under Section 13(1)(h) beforethe expiry of five years from the date the premises were let out to the tenant. (4). This court had occasion to deal with such a situation in Ashok Kumar vs. Suresh Chand (1) the suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. Therefore in view of Section 14(3) of the Act, the land lord withdrew the ground of personal necessity and the suit proceeded on the groundof default only. After five years lapsed from the date land creation of the tenancy the land lord filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to include the ground of personal necessity. The trial court allowed the application but this court reversed the order observing that if the amendment is allowed, it will relate back to the date of filing of the suit and the suit would still be within five years of the tenancy. (5). In Smt. Kishan Pyari vs. Smt. Shanti Devi (2) it was observed by this court that ``The tenancy commenced from March 30, 1972 and the amended plaint was filed on May 5, 1977 and thus on this date, five years from the commencement of the tenancy had already expired. (5). In Smt. Kishan Pyari vs. Smt. Shanti Devi (2) it was observed by this court that ``The tenancy commenced from March 30, 1972 and the amended plaint was filed on May 5, 1977 and thus on this date, five years from the commencement of the tenancy had already expired. Even if for the arguments sake, it is assumed that the amended plaint contained a new ground for eviction, the proceeding on the new ground had begun when the plaintiff had filed the amended plaint setting out the new ground covered by Section 14(2) of the Act. (6). After considering the provisions of Section 13(1) of Cls. (f) and (ff) and13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (No. XII of 1956) (as amended by Act XXXIV of 1969) it was observed by the Supreme Court in B. Banerjee vs. Anita Pan (3) that, ``Institution of a suit earlier has to be ignored for this purposes since that was not based on grounds covered by cls. (f) and (ff) and is not attracted by sub-section (3A). He begins proceedings on these new grounds only when he putsin his pleading setting out these grounds. In spirit and in letter he institutes his suit for recovery on the new ground only on the date on which he puts in his new pleading. (7). So relying on Banerjees case (supra) it can safely be held in the case on hand the proceedings on the new ground of bonafide necessity began on July 24,1995 when the amended plaint incorporating the new ground was filed. In order to interpret the provisions of Order 14(3) of the Act, date of institution of the suit has to be ignored and where the provisions of Section 14(3) are attracted, the amendment, if made during the pendency of the suit incorporating the ground of bonafide necessity, shall not relate back to the date of filing of the suit but shall be treatedfrom the date of filing of the amended plaint. (8). Attention of this court was not drawn towards the ratio of B. Banerjees case at the time of disposal of Ashok Kumars case (supra) therefore I am unable to pursue myself to agree with the ratio propounded in Ashok Kumars case. (9). The trial court thus committed jurisdictional error in observing that theplaintiff suit was not maintainable. (8). Attention of this court was not drawn towards the ratio of B. Banerjees case at the time of disposal of Ashok Kumars case (supra) therefore I am unable to pursue myself to agree with the ratio propounded in Ashok Kumars case. (9). The trial court thus committed jurisdictional error in observing that theplaintiff suit was not maintainable. If the order is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice. (10). Consequently, I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order. I direct that the plaintiffs suit shall proceed. The parties shall appear before the trial court on April 29, 1997. As the defendant did not appear before the court despiteservice, the trial court may in the interest of justice issue summons to him in case he does not appear on the date aforementioned. Costs easy.