JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 2. The petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 27.10.2009, whereby, an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code for amendment in the written-statement has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that application was filed for eviction by the applicant-respondent on the ground of bona fide necessity and, after filing written-statement, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that another premises of the applicant-respondent was vacated on 21.07.2009, therefore, for incorporating the said fact application for amendment was moved by the petitioner; but, the learned Rent Tribunal dismissed the said application though this fact was admitted by the applicant-respondent before the Rent Tribunal. 4. After perusing the entire pleadings and documents filed along with the writ petition, it is obvious that fact of vacating other premises of the respondent-applicant is not disputed by him but only assertion was made that though other premises was vacated on 21.07.2009; but, said premises was commercial premises which has nothing to do with the subject-matter herein. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the respondent-applicant is that no error has been committed by the Rent Tribunal while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for amendment in the written-statement. The order impugned is in consonance with the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2002. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the entire record. 7. In my opinion, the legislature after enactment of the Act of 2001, laid down the procedure for deciding the application for eviction and power has been granted to the Rent Tribunal to adopt own procedure for adjudicating the matter within time limit. Procedure as laid down in the Civil Procedure Code has not been explicitly made applicable but, at the same time, duty has been cast upon the Rent Tribunal to decide the procedure for adjudicating the matter. 8. In my opinion, in this case, when fact of vacating the other premises in the first floor on 21.07.2009 is admitted by the applicant, then, learned Rent Tribunal was under obligation to consider this aspect of the matter; but, the learned Tribunal straightaway rejected the application for amendment in the written-statement filed by the petitioner. The reason for rejection of the application is not proper. 9. The reason for rejection of the application is not proper. 9. As a result of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 27.10.2009 is quashed and set aside. While exercising power under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, application filed by the petitioner for amendment is allowed. Learned Rent Tribunal is directed to take amended written-statement on record and decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act.Petition allowed. *******