JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.1.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner herein seeking leave to amend the reply to the petition, stands rejected. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage. 3. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001(for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity inter alia alleging that the respondents require the premises for doing business of toys by their daughter-in-law Smt. Kavita. The petition is being contested by the petitioner herein by filing a reply thereto. 4. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner-tenant preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply stating that one Shri Pukhraj Borana operating STD/PCO in the shop let out to him by the respondents-landlord, situated just after one shop to the disputed shop, has vacated the premises and the possession thereof stands handed over to the respondents in the month of May,2013. The shop let out to the petitioner is of the size 4x 16 sq. ft. whereas the shop vacated by Shri Pukhraj is 5- 6 wide & 17 ft. long. Accordingly, it was pleaded that a suitable accommodation has become available to the respondents to meet the requirement of their daughter in law-Smt. Kavita and thus, the bona fide requirement as pleaded by the landlord, stands completely eclipsed. 5. A reply to the application was filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that after vacation of the said shop by Shri Pukhraj Borana, they have converted the shop into a room and the same has been included in their residential portion and since back portion of the room was not being utilised, they have constructed the back room. 6. The application preferred seeking leave to amend the reply has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal on the ground that the facts which are sought to be incorporated are in nature of evidence and therefore, with the leave of the court, the petitioner herein may lead evidence in this regard and therefore, the amendment prayed for, cannot be allowed. 7. The application preferred seeking leave to amend the reply has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal on the ground that the facts which are sought to be incorporated are in nature of evidence and therefore, with the leave of the court, the petitioner herein may lead evidence in this regard and therefore, the amendment prayed for, cannot be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts to be incorporated in the reply are based on subsequent event which would establish that the bona fide necessity of the respondents-landlord, if any, stands eclipsed and therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the relevant facts are pleaded and proved by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the facts sought to be incorporated based on subsequent event have material bearing upon the case and therefore, the amendment prayed for could not have been denied by the Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that indisputably, the landlord has acquired vacant possession of a shop which is situated just after one shop to the disputed shop and is bigger in size than disputed shop and therefore, the bona fide requirement of the landlord, if any, as pleaded, stands completely eclipsed. Learned counsel submitted that while deciding the amendment application, the rival submissions of the parties on merits of the contention sought to be raised on the basis of the facts to be incorporated in the pleadings cannot be gone into and therefore, in the interest of justice, the amendment of the reply as prayed for by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 8. On the other hand counsel appearing for the respondents Abdul Razzak v. The Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1229/14 ) submitted that the Tribunal has already framed the issue with regard to reasonable and bona fide necessity and therefore, the petitioner shall be at liberty to lead evidence showing that the bona fide necessity as pleaded does not exist and therefore, the even the evidence based on subsequent event could be led by the petitioner with the leave of the court. Accordingly, it is submitted that for the reasons recorded, the Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Accordingly, it is submitted that for the reasons recorded, the Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Undoubtedly, Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. It is guiding principle of amendment that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings shall be generally allowed. The pre trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. Normally, the right to relief must be judged by reference to the date of suit or legal proceedings were instituted but the subsequent development which have bearing on right to relief claimed by the party, such subsequent events may be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings. However, the power conferred under Order 6, Rule 17 is discretionary and has to be exercised judicially on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. It is well settled that if the subsequent events sought to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings are of such nature that the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlord stands completely eclipsed, then such amendment which is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issue with regard to bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord can be allowed by the courts. 12. It is to be noticed that in the instant case, the bona fide requirement of the premises is pleaded on behalf of the respondent-landlord stating that the premises is required inasmuch as, their daughter-in-law Kavita Rathi intends to start the business of toys therein. The factum of yet another shop owned by the respondent-landlord being vacated by one Shri Pukhraj during the pendency of the petition in the month of May,2013 is not in dispute. The factum of yet another shop owned by the respondent-landlord being vacated by one Shri Pukhraj during the pendency of the petition in the month of May,2013 is not in dispute. It is also not in the dispute that the shop vacant possession whereof the landlord has obtained during the pendency of the petition for eviction against the petitioners herein, is bigger in size than the shop in question. According to the petitioner herein, the shop vacated satisfies the bona fide requirement of the premises for the daughter-in-law of respondent-landlord and therefore, the bona fide necessity as pleaded by the respondent-landlord, stands totally eclipsed. In the considered opinion of this court, the subsequent event sought to be brought on record to establish the availability of the alternative accommodation satisfying the bona fide requirement of the landlord stands, has material bearing on the issue framed regarding the reasonable and bona fide necessity and it needs to be adjudged by the Rent Tribunal whether the premises, the vacant possession whereof, is acquired by the landlord during the pendency of the petition is suitable and sufficient to satisfy his requirement and whether on account of subsequent event, need of the landlord stands totally eclipsed. 13. In the instant case, the parties are yet to lead their evidence and indisputably, the appropriate application seeking leave to amend the reply was preferred by the petitioner-tenant with a promptitude and therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case noticed above, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 20.1.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner-tenant seeking leave to amend the reply is allowed. No order as to costs. *******