ORDER Since both these writ petition arise out of one and same Appeal No. 245/2014(Old No. 159/07) filed before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Kota (for short 'the Rent Appellate Tribunal), therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No. 5354/2015 has been filed by Naimuzzama Khan, tenant(hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') challenging order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal to the extent it is against him. Similarly, Writ Petition No. 6186/2015 has been filed by Shokat Ali(deceased) through his legal heirs(hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') challenging the same order, i.e., 02.03.2015 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal to the extent it is against them. 3. The landlord filed a suit for eviction before the Rent Tribunal, Kota(for short 'the Rent Tribunal') on the ground of bonafide necessity and material alteration against the tenant which application was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2007. The tenant being aggrieved thereby filed appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, which is still pending. 4. During pendency of the appeal, the tenant came to know that another suit filed by the landlords against some other tenant on the ground of bonafide necessity has been dismissed by Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 11.11.2010, while recording a finding that the landlords have got sufficient residential accommodation as such their need is not bonafide. The tenant then filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in reply to original application as also application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for bringing copy of aforesaid judgment and statements of landlord and their cross examination in that case, on record. The landlord opposed those applications. Learned Rent Appellate Tribunal after hearing parties dismissed both the applications of the tenant vide order dated 02.03.2015. 5. Similarly, the landlord also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC alleging that the tenant has purchased a double storey house situated at Kalpuriya, Nayapura, Kota in the name of his wife Seema Khan on 25.04.2008 by way of registered sale deed and thereafter has started living in the newly purchased house. Seema Khan filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the Consumer Forum, Kota against JVVNL wherein she admitted the fact about that house and that they were residing therein. Seema Khan filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the Consumer Forum, Kota against JVVNL wherein she admitted the fact about that house and that they were residing therein. Assertion of Seema Khan was supported by her affidavit produced before the Consumer Forum, Kota. Coming to know all these facts, the landlords obtained the documents and copy of the affidavit and registered sale deed and then filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking these documents on record. But, learned Rent Appellate Tribunal vide aforesaid order dated 02.03.2015 has also dismissed application filed by the landlord. Hence, these two writ petitions have been filed by both the parties. 6. Mr. Ravi Kumar Kasliwal, learned counsel for the tenant has argued that the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the documents, which the tenant sought to place on record were very much relevant for the present purpose because in that other case also, suit was filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide necessity and the Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 11.11.2010 has dismissed that suit recording a finding that the landlord has got sufficient residential accommodation and, therefore, has no bonafide necessity. It was, therefore, that the amendment was required to be made in the written statement and copy of the judgment and statements of with witnesses of the landlord recorded in that case, were required to be taken on record. He has further submitted that bonafide need of the landlords will have to be considered on the date of filing petition for eviction and subsequent developments would have no effect on such bonafide need. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in support of his arguments has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Wadi Vs. Amilal & Others, 2002 WLC(SC) Civil page 726; Mohd. Ismail Vs. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, 2010 SAR(Civil) 80 SC and decision of this Court in Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan Vs. Mr. Khushbu Mehta (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4672/2015 decided on 15.04.2015). 7. Mr. Sajid Ali, learned counsel for landlord has opposed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the tenant and contended that judgment delivered in the aforesaid eviction application and the statements recorded in that case, cannot be relied by the tenant in evidence of the present case where question of bonafide necessity would be independently decided. 7. Mr. Sajid Ali, learned counsel for landlord has opposed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the tenant and contended that judgment delivered in the aforesaid eviction application and the statements recorded in that case, cannot be relied by the tenant in evidence of the present case where question of bonafide necessity would be independently decided. He argued that application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the landlord ought to have been allowed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal because the tenant has purchased separate house in the name of his wife, who has filed a complaint before Consumer Forum, Kota alleging that they are residing in that house and registered sale deed of that house is also sought to be placed on record by the landlord. But the Rent Appellate Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing that application too vide impugned order. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad Vs. Sh. Pradeep Srivastava, AIR 2001 SC 803 ; decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Dwarka Prasad Vs. ADJ Bharatpur & Anr. 2007(3) DNJ(Raj.) 1673; decisions of this Court in Kailash Chand Vs. Gyan Chand Chordia(Jain), 2014 (2) WLN 598(Raj.); Shakhavat Hussain Vs. Tulsi Ram, 2013(3) WLN 262; Banwari Lal Vs. The Additional District Judge, Khetri & Others, 2014(1) WLN 274(Raj.); Rajendra Prasad Vs. Additional Civil Judge & Others, 2014 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 32; Jarnel Singh Vs. Khushi Mohammed & Ors., 2013 (1) DNJ(Raj.) 304. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Ismail(supra), while dealing with a case of eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide necessity that he and his three sons would require the shop in question for his bonafide need, held that the subsequent events that had occurred in the eviction proceedings, in which it was brought to the notice of the High Court that (1) one of his son had expired; (2) second son had absconded and (3) he had constructed two shops, had not been considered by the Courts below. The Supreme Court with that note remanded the matter back to the High Court. 9. The Supreme Court with that note remanded the matter back to the High Court. 9. The Supreme Court in Wadi(supra) while considering scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC held that since the documents in question throw light on germane issue, appellate court must have allowed such documents as additional evidence because judgment without admitting such document would be defective and non-effective. 10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan(supra) held that when subsequent events, which undercut at the very root of a case for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement, ought to be taken into consideration. 11. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kailash Chand (supra) held that the crucial date for deciding as to the bonafides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction, but the Courts should examine the impact of the subsequent events, which might have been taken place after filing of such eviction petition. The Courts need not consider each and every subsequent event more particularly the one, which is not germane to the relief claimed. 12. Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shakhavat Hussain(supra) held that crucial date for deciding as to the bona fide of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The Tribunal would be justified in refusing the application for amendment in the written statement if the proposed amendment does not serve any fruitful purpose. 13. In Dwarka Prasad(supra), a case arising out of the suit for eviction, the Division Bench of this Court upheld the order of the appellate court dismissing the application for amendment of written statement, but permitted the defendant therein to file application for adducing additional evidence before the first appellate court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adil Jamshed Frenchman(D) By Lrs. Vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 1210/2005 dated 14.02.2005). 14. In the present case, application for amendment of written statement has been filed at the stage of appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal. In view of the provisions contained in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001(for short 'the Act'), proceedings before the Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal are summary in nature. 14. In the present case, application for amendment of written statement has been filed at the stage of appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal. In view of the provisions contained in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001(for short 'the Act'), proceedings before the Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal are summary in nature. Section 21 of the Act grants discretion to the Rent Tribunal or Rent Appellate Tribunal to regulate their procedure in accordance with principles of natural justice, not being bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, for the purpose of discharge their functions; certain specified powers which are vested in the Civil Court have also been vested in the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. 15. Petition filed before the Rent Tribunal for eviction under Section 9 of the Act is not a regular civil suit and therefore, provisions of amendment contained in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are not applicable to those proceedings. In the specific list of provisions of CPC, which have been applied to proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the power of amendment of pleadings has not been included. What has been included is provisions of CPC with regard to summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; reviewing its decision; issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; dismissing petition for default or deciding it ex-parte; setting aside any order of dismissal of any petition for default or any order passed by it ex-parte; bringing legal representatives on record and any other matter as may be prescribed. It is, however, difficult to apply all other provisions of CPC before the Rent Tribunal or Rent Appellate Tribunal. Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal are not required to frame issues or therefore to consider the application for amendment of the pleadings. Although, of course, they can receive any subsequent development, which may have binding effect on the matter under their consideration by way of additional affidavit. 16. The Supreme Court in Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) By Lrs.(supra), while dealing with another dispute between landlord and tenant for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity, held that the defendant-tenant would be entitled to file an application for adducing additional evidence in a tenancy matter even at the state of the appeal. 16. The Supreme Court in Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) By Lrs.(supra), while dealing with another dispute between landlord and tenant for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity, held that the defendant-tenant would be entitled to file an application for adducing additional evidence in a tenancy matter even at the state of the appeal. The Division Bench of this Court in Dwarka Prasad(supra), while relying upon the aforesaid decision, held that defendant-appellant can file such application for adducing additional evidence before the appellate court even after rejection of the application seeking amendment. 17. In the present case, the documents, which the tenant seeks to place on record, are quite relevant. He wishes to place on record copy of judgment passed by Rent Tribunal in another suit filed by the landlords on the ground of personal bonafide necessity and the Rent Tribunal in that suit is said to have recorded a finding against the landlords on this aspect and for the same, statements of witnesses examined in that case. At the same time, the landlord also seeks to bring on record relevant documents showing that the tenant has acquired additional accommodation in the name of his wife. There is however no necessity to allow the tenant to amend his reply to the eviction petition for that purpose. The facts, which the tenant wants to place on record, can be allowed to be brought on record by way of additional affidavit. The landlords may also file affidavit in rebuttal thereto bringing on record such additional facts or the documents, which they may wish to rely. In these circumstances, while the application filed by the tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed, the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the tenant as well as landlords deserve to succeed and are allowed. 18. In view of above, both the writ petitions are allowed in part with the following directions: (1) That the Tenant shall file his affidavit along with the documents sought to be produced within four weeks. (2) That the landlords shall file their affidavit in rebuttal within four weeks. (3) That the tenant and the landlords would not be entitled to file any other affidavit, except aforesaid, as the matter is pending at appellate stage. (2) That the landlords shall file their affidavit in rebuttal within four weeks. (3) That the tenant and the landlords would not be entitled to file any other affidavit, except aforesaid, as the matter is pending at appellate stage. However, they would be entitled to cross-examine each other within four weeks after filing of their respective affidavit. (4) Main appeal pending before the Rent Appellate Tribunal shall be decided within four months from the date copy of this order is produced before it. Stay application stands disposed of.