Petitioner is a tenant in the suit shop against whom action for eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff/respondent for his son and that the annual income of the tenant is more than Rs.60, 000/- was brought before the Court of Sub Judge, Jammu. 2. After the plaintiffs evidence was concluded and the defendant/petitioner was in the process of leading his evidence, the defendant/petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement as also for framing of additional issue. The ground for amendment of the written statement as projected in the application was that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs son for whose necessity the suit for eviction was filed, has joined legal profession on being enrolled as an Advocate in the J&K High Court. He is having lucrative practice, therefore, the need of the plaintiff to settle his son in the suit shop seizes to exist. Another plea raised in the application was that the land where the suit shop is existing is a Nazul land and governed by the provisions of Land Grants Act, 1960 and the plaintiff has leased out the hotel constructed on the said land to his wife. He is not entitled to transfer the leasehold right or sub-let the same. Action of the plaintiff being violation of the provisions of the Land Grants Act, hence the suit filed by him, is not maintainable. He, accordingly, asked for framing of following additional issue:- "That the suit of the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Land Grants Act, 1960 as such not maintainable." 3. He also intended to add certain paragraphs in the written statement in regard to the lease of the land which is admittedly in favour of the plaintiff and has been renewed for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 19/02/1978 as per the submissions made in the application for amendment. 4. The Trial court after inviting objections from the respondent/plaintiff rejected the application of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement vide the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2003. It is this order which is subject matter of present revision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. 4. The Trial court after inviting objections from the respondent/plaintiff rejected the application of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement vide the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2003. It is this order which is subject matter of present revision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Jain, appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the subsequent event viz engagement of the plaintiffs son in the legal profession after completion of its law, the Court is required to adjudicate upon the need of the plaintiff for his son. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the written statement and bring this fact on record. He has also urged that the plaintiff has transferred the hotel to his wife in contravention of provisions of Land Grants Act with a view to carve out a grant for eviction of the tenant as the income from the hotel is not being disclosed. 6. I have gone through the order passed by the Trial Court impugned in this petition. The plaintiff/respondent in paras 4, 6 and 8 has specifically mentioned that the suit shop is required by the plaintiff for his use and occupation of his son namely Gagan Aneja as they want to start the business of Dry Fruit in the suit shop. Plaintiff has also specifically stated in para 8 of the plaint that plaintiffis helping his wife to run a lodge under the name and style of M/s Jagdamba Hotel but income from the said business of the plaintiffs wife is not sufficient to maintain the family in these hard days of economic exigencies and the plaintiff and his son are in desperate need of the shop to augment their income. Mere fact that during the pendency of the suit, the son of the plaintiff has acquired law degree and is engaged in legal profession on being enrolled as an Advocate, does not mean that the personal necessity of the plaintiff for himself and his son seizes to exist. The engagement of his son in the legal profession may be relevant for deciding the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the parties. Even if it is assumed that the son of the plaintiff has permanently settled in legal profession a still the suit will survive as the eviction is sought on the personal necessity of the plaintiff also. 7. The defendant/petitioner is still leading his evidence. Even if it is assumed that the son of the plaintiff has permanently settled in legal profession a still the suit will survive as the eviction is sought on the personal necessity of the plaintiff also. 7. The defendant/petitioner is still leading his evidence. Issue No.5 framed by the Trial court reads as under: - "5.Whether suit shop is required by the plaintiff for himself and his son Gagan Aneja and their need is comparatively more than that of the defendants? OPP. 8. The fact of engagement of the plaintiffs son can be considered by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence while deciding this issue. Since the defendant is still leading this evidence, he is at liberty to lead any evidence regarding the subsequent event i.e. the engagement of the son of the plaintiff in legal profession and the Court can take notice of this subsequent event. No amendment is needed for this purpose as this is only a question of evidence. Whether plaintiffs need continues to subsist on account of engagement of his son or not, the Trial Court has held that the need of the plaintiff is to be seen as on the date of lodging the action for eviction. 9. Mr.Jain, appearing for petitioner, has referred to "Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors.", AIR 1975 SC 1409, "Hasmati Rai and Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad", AIR 1981 SC 1711 as also "Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava ", AIR 2001 SC 803. 10. The Apex Court in "Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors.", AIR 1974 SC 1178, held that it is open to the Court including the Court of Appeal to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed scenario under following circumstances:- "1. by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or 2. where it is necessay to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or 3. by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or 2. where it is necessay to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or 3. to do complete justice between the parties." Similarly, in "Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders", AIR 1975 SC 1409 the Apex Court held as under:- "Where, during the pendency of a proceeding under Rent Control Legislation by the landlord for permission to evict the tenants, a subsequent event in the facts of the case takes place which has a material bearing on the landlords right to evict, the approach of the High Court in revision, in taking cognizance of the new development cannot be said to be wrong or illegal." In "Hasmati Rai and Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad", AIR 1981 SC 1711, the Apex Court held as under:- "Where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order of eviction is made. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlords requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the Court to take into consideration subsequent events. Once an appeal against decree or order of eviction is preferred, the appeal being a continuation of suit, the landlords need must be shown to continue to exist at appellate stage. If the tenant is in a position to show that the need or requirement no more exists because of subsequent events, it would be open to him to point out such events and the Court including the appellate Court has to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the same." In "Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava", AIR 2001 SC 803, The Apex Court held as follows:- "The crucial date for deciding as to the bonafides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bonafides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsists. The subsequent events to overshadow the genuineness of the need must be of such nature and of such a dimension that the need propounded by the petitioning party should have ben completely eclipsed by such subsequent events. It is pernicious, and unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period." 11. Keeping in view the ratio of the judgment referred to above, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the court is under an obligation to take note of the subsequent event provided it has material impact on the suit or that the claim of the plaintiff is eclipsed. In the present case, keeping in view the specific averments made in the plaint that the suit shop is required by the plaintiff for himself and hi son, the subsequent event i.e. the engagement of the son of the plaintiff cannot be said to totally eclipse the claim of the plaintiff for eviction of the suit shop. Though the subsequent event may have some impact on the claim of the plaintiff as far need of the suit shop for his son is concerned. 12. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to lead evidence bringing on record the subsequent even tif he so desires. For this no amendment in the pleadings is required, as such evidence can be considered by the Court while deciding issue No. 5. 13. As regard the other contention regarding the action of the plaintiff to transfer the lease hold right in favour of his wife is concerned, petitioner-tenant cannot raise any such plea for the simple reason that he is tenant under the plaintiff. 13. As regard the other contention regarding the action of the plaintiff to transfer the lease hold right in favour of his wife is concerned, petitioner-tenant cannot raise any such plea for the simple reason that he is tenant under the plaintiff. He cannot deny his title during the subsistence of tenancy. The fact that plaintiffs wife is running the hotel has been categorically mentioned in the plaint itself, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any amendment to plead that the plaintiff has violated the terms of grant, that is a matter between the Grantor and the Grantee. Petitioner who is a tenant of the Grantee, cannot raise any such plea in an action for eviction. 14. For the fore going reasons, this revision petition is rejected with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to lead his evidence in regard to the subsequent event, if he so desires.