ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Pali, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer for allowing him to amend his written statement filed before the Rent Tribunal, Pali has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed an eviction petition under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal. The said eviction petition was filed on the grounds of bonafide necessity, enhancement of rent and recovery of due rent. The Rent Tribunal had framed as many as six issues, out of which issue Nos.1 and 5 were regarding the bonafide necessity of the respondent No. 2 and the availability of the alternate premises. The Rent Tribunal decided the eviction petition vide judgment dated 26.03.2012, whereby the issue Nos.1 and 5 regarding the bonafide necessity and availability of the alternate premises respectively were decided in favour of the respondent No. 2 and against the petitioner and the other issue Nos.2 and 3 were also been decided in favour of the respondent No. 2 and against the petitioner. In respect of issue No. 4, the Rent Tribunal observed that since the respondent No. 2 had paid sufficient court fee on 15.03.2012, the same was not necessary to be decided. 2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC on 09.09.2015 and produced the copies of some of the income tax returns of the son of the respondent No. 2 for the years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer that he may be allowed to amend his reply filed before the Rent Tribunal in response to the eviction petition. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer that he may be allowed to amend his reply filed before the Rent Tribunal in response to the eviction petition. The petitioner claimed that as the respondent No. 2 shown bonafide necessity of the premises in question for the purpose of his son to start his own business of immitation jewellery but now after the decision of the Rent Tribunal, the son of the respondent No. 2 has started his own business in the name of Jain Pickles, therefore, the said facts are necessary to be incorporated in the reply. 3. The Rent Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 19.08.2016 ordered that the counsel for the respondent No. 2 admitted the documents submitted by the petitioner by application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. Thereafter, it has recorded in the order dated 19.08.2016 that the arguments on the application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC had been heard and the matter was posted for order on the said application on 26.08.2016. 4. On 26.08.2016, the Rent Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC while observing that it had to decide the appeal while taking into consideration the bonafide necessity of the respondent No. 2 on the date when the eviction petition was filed and, therefore, amendment proposed by the petitioner in his reply to the eviction petition in respect of incident happened after that date are not liable to be taken on record. The Rent Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that if the proposed amendments in the reply are taken on record then the matter is required to be remanded to the Rent Tribunal and the same is not in the interest of justice. 5. Assailing the validity of the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Rent Appellate Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in his reply to the eviction petition while observing that it has to decide the question of bonafide necessity of the respondent No. 2 taking into consideration the date when the eviction petition was filed and, therefore, subsequent developments cannot be allowed to be taken on record. It is argued that a tenant against whom a decree of eviction is passed by the Rent Tribunal, can always pointed out subsequent events to show that the bonafide necessity of the landlord has vanished or no more exists because of subsequent events. It is contended that the respondent No. 2 has filed eviction petition while contending that he needs the suit premises for his son, who has to start his own business but after passing of the eviction order by the Rent Tribunal, the son of the respondent No. 2 has started his new business and as such the petitioner wants to demonstrate before the Rent Appellate Tribunal that the bonafide necessity of the respondent No. 2 has vanished and for that purpose he seeks amendment in his reply filed before the Rent Appellate Tribunal but the Rent Appellate Tribunal has illegally refused to allow amendment in the reply to the eviction petition while saying that the subsequent developments cannot be taken into consideration. It is contended that if the subsequent developments goes to the root of the matter, the same cannot be refused to be taken on record. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 6. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Hasmat Rai & Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad reported in (1981) 3 SCC 103 and Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 623 and the decisions of this Court rendered in Navneet Kumar & Ors. v. Mahaveer Prasad & Ors. reported in 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 394 and Samrathmal v. Mohammed Iqbal reported in 2012 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 831. 7. It is true that if subsequent events in a case goes to the root of the matter, particularly the bonfide necessity of the landlord, it can be taken into consideration even at appellate stage. To this extent, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in saying that the Rent Appellate Tribunal has erred in observing that it has to decide the bonafide necessity of the tenant as it exits on the date when the eviction petition was filed. 8. To this extent, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in saying that the Rent Appellate Tribunal has erred in observing that it has to decide the bonafide necessity of the tenant as it exits on the date when the eviction petition was filed. 8. However, in the present case the petitioner has first filed the copies of income tax returns of the son of the respondent No. 2 on record and later on, moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC while claiming that since the son of the respondent No. 2 has started a new business in the name of Jain Pickles, the respondent No. 2 is not in bonafide need of the suit premises. 9. The respondent No. 2 has admitted the income tax returns of his son before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, but this fact itself is not sufficient for allowing the petitioner to amend his reply filed before the Rent Tribunal in response to the eviction petition. Simply because the son of the respondent No. 2 has started a new business, it cannot be presumed that the bonafide necessity of the respondent No. 2 regarding the suit premises has been vanished. 10. The Rent Appellate Tribunal in its discretion has observed that the proposed amendment regarding starting of business by the son of respondent No. 2 in the year 2013-2014 and thereafter, is not justified to be taken on record and I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercise by the Rent Appellate Tribunal. The Rent Appellate Tribunal is justified in saying that if the said amendment is allowed then the matter is required to be remanded the Rent Tribunal for its finding on this new fact and the same is not in the interest of justice because the proceedings under the Act of 2001 are summary proceedings and the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not mandatory applicable. 11. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Pali. 12. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. 13. Stay petition also stands dismissed.