JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.2.2000 of the Additional District Judge, Kotputali passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 22/1995 under which the application filed by the defendant appellant petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was came to be rejected. 3. The plaintiff respondent non petitioner filed a civil suit for eviction of the defendant appellant petitioner from the suit premises i.e. two shops situated at Bachhdi, Dilli Darwaja, Kotputli and for recovery of the arrears of rent from the defendant appellant petitioner. The eviction of the defendant appellant petitioner was sought from the suit premises inter alia on the ground of default in the payment of rent and bona fide necessity of the suit premises. The learned trial Court under its judgment and decree dated 7.9.1995 decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent non-petitioner. The defendant appellant petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court which was registered as Civil Regular Appeal No. 22/1995. During pendency of the appeal the defendant appellant petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with the averments that in the appeal the point of reasonable and bonafide need of the suit premises is to be decided and amendments prayed for relate to this ground. That application was came to be rejected under the impugned order of the first appellate Court. Thus, this revision petition. 4. That application was came to be rejected under the impugned order of the first appellate Court. Thus, this revision petition. 4. The application filed by the defendant appellant petitioner, reads as under: 1- ;g fd mDr muokuh vihy Jheku~ ds ;gkWa fopkjk/khu gS ftlesa vkt dh rkjh[k is'kh fu;r gSA 2- ;g fd mDr muokuh vihy esa Jheku~ vnkyr dks eq[; fcUnq tks r; djuk gS oknh dh fookfnr nqdkuksa dh ;qfDr;qDr ln~HkkoukiwoZd futh vko';drk gS ;k ugha bl ij xkSj o fu.kZ; djukA 3- ;g fd oknh dh vko';drk dh fcUnq dks fu.kZ; djrs le; vkt rd oknh dks vko';drk gS ;k ugha bl ij xkSj fd;k tkuk vko';d ,oa U;k;laxr gSA 4- ;g fd oknh ds ikl vU; nqdkusa gSa rF; cs[kwch lkfcr gSA 5- ;g fd oknh dh ,d nqdku tks fd xzkeh.k vkapfyd cSad ds ikl Fkh rFkk ,d nqdku tks rksy o eki foHkkx ds ikl fdjk;s ij Hkh vc [kkyh gks pqdh gS tks mudk dCtk oknh ds ikl gSA ;s nksuksa gh nqdkusa fookfnr nqdkus dkQh yEch o pkSM+h gSa rFkk oknh us vHkh nks nqdkusa 'kj.k ,tsUlh lhesUV O;olk; ds fy, fdjk;s ij nh gSA 6- ;g fd oknh us mDr nqdkuksa dk okn o tokc nkok izLrqr gksus ds ckn fdjk;s ij nh gS rFkk mDr tks nqdkusa tks fdjk;s ij nh gSa vc vihy izLrqr gksus ds ckn nh gSa ;s lHkh rF; lcflDosUV dh rkjhQ esa vkrh gSaA 7- ;g fd mDr fjdkMZ ij ykuk vfr vko';d ,oa U;k;laxr gSA 8- ;g fd mDr rjehe oknksRrj esa fd, tkus ls okn dh uh;r esa dksbZ rCnhyh ugha gksrh gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu gS fd oknksRrj ds ftEeu 4 esa l ;g fd oknh ds ikl rksy o eki foHkkx dh nqdku] rFkk xzkeh.k vkapfyd cSad dh nqdku [kkyh gksdj oknh ds dCts esa vk xbZ rFkk oknh us vius dCts dh nks nqdkusa 'kj.k ,tsUlh] lhesUV O;olk; gsrq fdjk;s ij nh gS rFkk oknh us nks nqdkusa vius dCts dh vHkh fodz; dh gSaA mDr rjehe oknksRrj esa fd, tkus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk vko';d gS ,oa U;k;laxr gSA 5. Reply to this application filed by the plaintiff respondent non-petitioner, reads as under: 1- ;g fd izkFkZuk i= ds [k.M uEcj ,d fjdkMZ ds rF; gSaA 2- ;g gS fd izkFkZuk i= ds [k.M uEcj nks esa of.kZr rF; fjdkMZ ds rF; gSaA 3- ;g gS fd okn i= esa [k.M uEcj 3 esa of.kZr rF; ftl izdkj tkfgj fd, x, gSa drbZ xyr gS Lohdkj ughaA 4- ;g gS fd okn i= ds [k.M uEcj 4 esa of.kZr rF; ftl rjg tkfgj fd, x, gSa xyr gSa] Lohdkj ughaA 5- ;g gS fd okn i= ds [k.M uEcj 5 esa of.kZr rF; ftl rjg tkfgj fd, x, gSa xyr gSa] Lohdkj ugha dksbZ Hkh nqdku t;iqj xzkeh.k vkapfyd cSad ls oknh dks [kkyh ugha gqbZ uk gh oknh us dksbZ nqdku fdjk;s ij nh] tkucw>dj vihykaV us ;g rF; xyr ntZ fd, gSaA 6- ;g gS fd izkFkZuk i= dk fteu uEcj 6 esa of.kZr rF; drbZ xyr gS Lohdkj ughaA izkFkZuk i= osx izLrqr fd;k gS dsoy ek= vihy esa nsjh djus dh fu;r ls ;g izkFkZuk i= izLrqr gqvkA 7- ;g gS fd izkFkZuk i= dk fteu uEcj 7 drbZ xyr gS] Lohdkj ughaA 8- ;g gS fd izkFkZuk i= dk fteu uEcj 8 xyr gS Lohdkj ughaA iwoZ esa Hkh izfroknh us oknh ds ikl 27 nqdkusa gksuk crk;k Fkk ftlesa vkB nqdkusa [kkyh gksuk crk;k x;k FkkA bu lkjs rF;ksa ij ekuuh; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us iw.kZ :i ls foopsu djds viuk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA fo'ks"k fooj.k 1- ;g gS fd mDr vihy xr pkj lky ls okLrs cgl py jgh gS rFkk vihykaV us ;g izkFkZuk i= dsoy ek= nsjh djus dh fu;r ls izLrqr fd;k gSA uk gh bl rjg ds rjehe dh dksbZ btktr nh tk ldrh gSA vr% tokc izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd vihykaV dk izkFkZuk i= [kpsZ lfgr [kkfjt Qjekus dh d`ik djsaA 6. The averments made in para No. 5 of the application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the defendant appellant petitioner are not specifically denied by the plaintiff respondent non-petitioner. 7. As regards to contents of the application that the shops which are alleged to have been vacated by Weight and Measurement Department same are not controverted at all. The averments made in para No. 5 of the application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the defendant appellant petitioner are not specifically denied by the plaintiff respondent non-petitioner. 7. As regards to contents of the application that the shops which are alleged to have been vacated by Weight and Measurement Department same are not controverted at all. It is further averred in para No. 5 of this application that two shops have been let out by the plaintiff respondent non-petitioner to Sharan agency for cement business. 8. In para No. 5 of this application, it is stated that the shops are let out after filing of suit. Further it is clarified that shops were let out after filing of the appeal. Thus proposed amendments have strong relevance, bearing and concern with the ground of reasonable and bonafide need of the suit premises. Prima facie these are subsequent events and are necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication and decision between the parties, in the suit on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The proposed amendment is necessary and by not granting this amendment in the written statement the learned Court below has committed a serious illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction. In case the order of the first appellate Court is allowed to stand, certainly it will occasion failure of justice to the defendant appellant petitioner. Accordingly, this revision petition succeeds and same is allowed. The order dated 14.2.2000 of the Additional District Judge, Kotputli in Civil Regular Appeal No. 22/1995 is set aside. The application of the defendant appellant petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is granted and leave is granted to him to amend the written statements as prayed therein, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 2000/-. Costs is to be paid to the plaintiff by the A/C, Payee Cheque, DD or Pay Order. 9. Mr. L.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent non-petitioner submits that the learned first appellate Court may be directed to take the evidence on this amended pleading in the written statement itself. Learned counsel for the defendant appellant petitioner has no objection in case the evidence, if necessary on this amended pleadings, is recorded by the First Appellate Court itself. Ordered accordingly. 10. Learned counsel for the defendant appellant petitioner has no objection in case the evidence, if necessary on this amended pleadings, is recorded by the First Appellate Court itself. Ordered accordingly. 10. The first appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs of this revision petition.Revision Allowed as Above - Amendment Allowed on Costs of Rs. 2000/. *******