JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the learned Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement/reply to the petition of respondent No. 2 was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that one room on the second floor of the property in question has become available to the landlord. This room was earlier let out to one Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya by daughter-in-law of respondent No. 2 and has now become available to her. Therefore, her necessity can be fulfilled by that room. It was argued that the entire building is owned by respondent No. 2. In order to create a false defence in her favour, respondent No. 2 by way of internal interim arrangement let out the said room to the above said tenant through her daughter-in-law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ. petition and has argued that sole object of the petitioner in filing the application is to delay the proceedings. In the past also, two such applications were filed by him. Petition was filed way back in November, 2003 which is still at the stage of evidence of the petitioner-tenant. It was further argued that no such room as alleged has become available because it has not been vacated by the above mentioned tenant and this fact is, therefore, incorrectly stated by the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find whether or not the room has become available to the landlord and if available and what would be the effect of the said room having been let out by daughter-in-law particularly when respondent No. 2 is stated to be the owner of the entire building, are all such questions which can be decided on the basis of evidence. Under the circumstance, however, if a subsequent development like the one disclosed by the petitioner has at all taken place, the right to bring this fact on record of the case cannot be denied to that tenant. At the same time, however, the petitioner tenant has to be required to adduce his evidence or otherwise by affidavits on this aspect and not to seek unnecessary adjournments only for this reason. 5. At the same time, however, the petitioner tenant has to be required to adduce his evidence or otherwise by affidavits on this aspect and not to seek unnecessary adjournments only for this reason. 5. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed with the direction that the desired amendment in the written statement/reply to the petition shall be allowed to be incorporated. The petitioner shall be required to adduce his evidence by affidavits or otherwise within a fortnight from the next date fixed before the trial Court after the production of certified copy of this order. The respondent would also be at liberty to produce his evidence in rebuttal on this aspect within a fortnight thereafter. The learned Tribunal make efforts to dispose of the suit expeditiously given the fact that the eviction of the tenant from the premises for recovery immediate possession is prayed for the necessity of senior citizen. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.Writ petition allowed. *******