JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jodhpur in civil original suit No. 375/ 95 by filing this revision petition under Section 115 CPC whereby the Court dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 2. The non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner. One of the grounds of ejectment is the reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the shop in question. With regard to this point, the plaintiff pleaded that he and his wife want to carry on the business of hosiery, handicraft and manihari. Where the suit situated is a market for the above business. Presently the plaintiff is carrying on the business of bamboos and bailies. It was also alleged that the wife of the plaintiff is well-versed in the business of handicraft. The plaintiff further stated that he has got no other shop in the above market. The wife of the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and he remarried. 3. The defendant-petitioner denied the existence of the alleged personal and bona fide necessity of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got many shops. The intention of the plaintiff is only to enhance the rent or to establish a market by including the suit shop so that he could fetch substantial rent. The suit was filed with an ulterior object. After recording the evidence of the parties, the case was fixed for final arguments. Then the petitioner filed this application on 13-10-1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is important to take a note of the statement made by the petitioner in the application. The suit was filed with an ulterior object. After recording the evidence of the parties, the case was fixed for final arguments. Then the petitioner filed this application on 13-10-1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is important to take a note of the statement made by the petitioner in the application. The petitioner has stated that on 6-10-1997, the plaintiff met the petitioner and told that in Gancha Bazar, there is a shop renting under the name and style "Hajarimal Udairam" in which the plaintiff and his son Deepak are partners, that the plaintiff has opened a new firm in January 1992 and this firm is also situated in the said Gancha Bazar, that the plaintiff's second wife is partner in the above firm and that the plaintiff does not require the above shop for his personal necessity to carry on the proposed business but in order to establish a market by adding adjoining properties to the suit shop for the purpose of fetching handsome rent. The plaintiff even disclosed his Income Tax and Sales Tax No, also. 4. The plaintiff filed written reply opposing the above application of the defendant. He has stated that the evidence of the parties was concluded on 29-4-1997 and from 13-5-1997 the case is always fixed for final arguments. The defendant has filed this application in order to delay the disposal of the suit so that no decree could be passed against him. The plaintiff stated that defendant has given description of the properties possessed by him and his family members in Manak Chowk, Ghantaghar Road, Mirchi Bazar and Makrana Mohalla. The defendant also produced evidence in this regard showing thereby that the defendant is well aware of the properties vesting in the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also adduced evidence which can also be taken to be evidence in respect of the amendment sought by the defendant. The plaintiff indirectly admitted his interest infirm Hajariram Udairam and he is not interested in the business of bamboos and bailies. Whether his wife has got interest in firm Rajkumar Anil Kumar was not relevant for the purpose of the above suit. He, therefore, prayed that the application of the defendant be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel, after considering the arguments of both the parties, found that the amendment sought by the defendant were not relevant or necessary for raising the controversy between the parties. He, therefore, prayed that the application of the defendant be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel, after considering the arguments of both the parties, found that the amendment sought by the defendant were not relevant or necessary for raising the controversy between the parties. He, therefore, dismissed the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He has stated that the defendant wanted to add para 3(a) as stated in the application. The defendant has stated that the relevant information disclosed by him in the petition was furnished by Lalchand partner of the plaintiff. In view of the above facts, the requirement of the plaintiff cannot be said to be either bona fide or reasonable. If the defendant is allowed the above amendment, the question of reasonable, and bona fide necessity could be decided in a proper perspective and the defendant will be in a position to furnish relevant data necessary for determining this serious controversy arising between the parties. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases:- Usman v. Sitaram, 1992 (2) RLW-506 , Munshilal v. Santra Devi, 1996 (3) WLC-560 and Premchand v. Thakurji Shri Adinathji 1987 (1) RLR 554 . 7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and the reply filed by the non-petitioner-plaintiff. It may be stated that the defendant has, in the written statement, alleged that the plaintiff owns substantial immovable and commercial properties in the city and particularly in areas like Manak Chowk, Ghantaghar Road, Mirchi Bazar and Makrana Mohalla. It was also alleged that the plaintiff has got big Haveli near Gulab Sagar. The defendant has also led evidence regarding these allegations. It appears very strange that as per the version of the plaintiff or his partner, during casual conversation with the defendant, would furnish ammunition to the defendant which could be,used against the former. The source of the information as disclosed by the defendant in order to base the proposed amendments on the happening of the subsequent event is doubtful. The plaintiff has not denied his interest in the firm Hajarimal Udairam. The plaintiff has also not denied that his wife is a partner in firm Rajkumar Anil Kumar. These are the only facts regarding which the amendment has been sought. The plaintiff has not denied his interest in the firm Hajarimal Udairam. The plaintiff has also not denied that his wife is a partner in firm Rajkumar Anil Kumar. These are the only facts regarding which the amendment has been sought. In my opinion, the defendant has Already made substantial averments regarding the business properties possessed by the plaintiff. The amendment sought cannot be said to be new. The evidence led by the defendant is enough to challenge the reasonable and bona fide personal necessity alleged by the plaintiff. The suit is at the final stage. It appears that the defendant was in the know of all these facts even before as he has led evidence regarding these matters. The application has been filed when the case was fixed for final arguments. The application cannot be said to be relevant or bona fide. 8. For the above reasons, I do not find any substance in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******