Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the petitioner tenant has been preferred against the order of learned Civil Judge (J. D.) No. 1, Pali against his order dated 6-4-98 by which he refused to make amendments in the written statement of tenant and dismissed the application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the impugned order. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, Sohanlal had filed a civil suit for eviction of premises on the ground that his son Dr. Arun Kumar who is a medical practitioner wanted to open his clinic in the demised premises which is on rent with the petitioner. Sohanlal died during the pendency of the civil suit on 20-1-96. His wife also expired during the pendency of the suit. Initially during his statement, Sohanlal deposed that he was having four rooms, store and a kitchen etc. out of which one room was being used as his bed room, the other by his son Dr. Arun Kumar, third one was being used as a consultation room and the fourth room was being used as guest room. Besides the extra room was being used as study room for children. It has been submitted that Sohanlal had filed a civil suit No. 73/90 for permanent injunction praying that the printing press in the demised premises may be closed but later on he did not press the prayer to close the press. In this suit the Court had come to the conclusion that Sohanlal was having other premises as well. The defendant prayed by application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. to add the plea that the plaintiff respondents were having these premises and as such landlords reasonable and bona fide necessity for the demised premises was a hoax. The landlords were having alternate accommodation and as such the demised premises were not bona fide required for the purpose for which the suit was filed. The trial Court dismissed the petition by the impugned order. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that Dr. Arun Kumar was a Government Servant and could not do the private practice. The landlords were having alternate accommodation and as such the demised premises were not bona fide required for the purpose for which the suit was filed. The trial Court dismissed the petition by the impugned order. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that Dr. Arun Kumar was a Government Servant and could not do the private practice. He also submitted that the landlords after the death of Sohanlal and his wife have sufficient accommodation and that it was necessary to consider subsequent events and that in view of the fact that the landlords have alternative accommodation and the fact has been decided in another civil suit No. 73/90, the amendment was necessary in the written statement. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the landlords respondents submitted that the subsequent events can be looked into without amendment and that the case has been pending for final arguments since long and that the defendant petitioner in one way or the other has been delaying the proceedings, the order of the learned Civil Judge does not call for any interference. He also submitted that the tenant petitioner did not pay the rent and his defence was struck off vide order dated 13-7-93 and he wants to take the benefit by way of amendment of pleadings in order to undo the order by which defence has been struck off because in case the amendment is allowed, parties will be again required to lead evidence and have further innings. He has, therefore, prayed that the order of the learned Civil Judge may be maintained. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the order of the learned Civil Judge that the civil suit has been pending for final arguments for last three years but the defendant petitioner has been delaying the proceedings for one reason or the other and is not allowing the suit to be concluded. Learned counsel for the landlords respondents has submitted that it is yet another effort to delay the disposal of the suit by getting the written statement amended which should not be allowed. Learned counsel for the landlords respondents has submitted that it is yet another effort to delay the disposal of the suit by getting the written statement amended which should not be allowed. ( 7 ) REVISIONS are preferred in this Court under Section 115 of C. P. C. which provides that if it appears to the High Court that the trial Court has executed a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity then only it can make such order in the case as it thinks fit. So far as bona fide requirement is concerned, the case of the landlord is that the demised premises were required for the use of Dr. Arun Kumar who is a medical practitioner. Learned counsel for the landlords-respondents has submitted that even a doctor who is a Government servant, unless barred, can have private practice. This position cannot be challenged in view of the fact that Arun Kumar is not posted on such a post where private practice is barred. Initially the case was that it was Arun Kumar for whom the demised premises were required. So the death of Sohanlal is not much material in this case as bona fide requirement as originally pleaded still existed. Subsequent event of death of Sohanlal and his wife can very well be looked into by the trial Court even without amendment in the circumstances of this case. Therefore, to me it appears that the defendant-petitioner is just taking the benefit of each and every event which he finds available to delay the disposal of the civil suit. ( 8 ) JURISDICTION of revisional Court is very limited and this Court will not interfere unless it finds the above conditions fulfilled as enumerated in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited number of authorities and drew my attention to Rule 34 of the Civil Rules which provides as to how the amendments are to be made in pleadings. Rule 34 provides the form of an application and mentions that it will contain all consequential amendments. I am not concerned here with this aspect of the matter. I am simply concerned with the question if the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally? Rule 34 provides the form of an application and mentions that it will contain all consequential amendments. I am not concerned here with this aspect of the matter. I am simply concerned with the question if the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally? I do not find so in the present case because the suit was basically for the bona fide personal need of Dr. Arun Kumar which still exists. It hardly matters if he is in Government service. Even a doctor in Government service can have a private practice. Besides, the demised premises is required for the residential purpose of Dr. Arun Kumar. ( 9 ) IN AIR 1981 SC 1113 , M. M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma, an eviction suit was filed on the ground of bona fide requirements by one of the co-owners of the property. The suit was decreed and appeal was filed. One of the co-owners lost interest in property as a result of decree in partition suit. It was held that the appellate Court can take notice of this subsequent event. My view that the subsequent events can be looked into is based on such authorities as this one. The other one is Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal, (1997) 4 SCC 413 . Learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1978 SC 484 , M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, wherein a suit for recovery of money due under a promissory note was filed by a firm through a partner, the amendment of plaint on the ground that the partnership firm already stood dissolved on the date of filing the suit and that the suit is instituted by one of the partners of a dissolved firm, was allowed under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. This citation has no bearing on the facts of the present case. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner cited 1987 0 Rajlw 555, Bhagirath v. Ram Prasad, in which it was held that failure of tenant to prove oblique motive of the landlord cannot be treated as bona fideness of landlord as proved and the Court has to examine objectively the reasonable and bona fide need of the landlord. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner cited 1987 0 Rajlw 555, Bhagirath v. Ram Prasad, in which it was held that failure of tenant to prove oblique motive of the landlord cannot be treated as bona fideness of landlord as proved and the Court has to examine objectively the reasonable and bona fide need of the landlord. But in the present case the defendant wants amendment in the pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 of C. P. C. It does not allege any oblique motive of the land-lord and as such this ruling does not apply to the present case. In view of Ramesh Chand Pandey v. Babulal, 1995 (1) Raj LR 132 : (1996 AIHC 3514), a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, the order passed under Section 13 (5) of the Rent Control Act by which defence was struck off would apply only to the ground of default and not other grounds. This legal position cannot be challenged but the question still remains whether the amendments which the defendant wants to make are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties? My view is that the amendments which the defendant wants to bring, are not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy because right from very beginning the case of the landlord is that demised premises was required for the bona fide necessity of his son Dr. Arun Kumar. Subsequent event of alternate accommodation can very well be looked into in view of the fact that the parents of Arun Kumar died during the pendency of the suit. When I find from the order of the learned Civil Judge that the defendant petitioner has been delaying the suit for final arguments for more than three years under one pretext or the other, I am of the view that it is another effort of the defendant tenant petitioner to further delay the disposal of the suit which cannot be allowed in this way. He should be saddled with exemplary cost. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY the revision petition is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/ -. Petition dismissed.