JUDGMENT : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge is to the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the lower appellate Court below Exh.32 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 387 of 2015, rejecting the application of the petitioners-tenant for amendment of the appeal and written statement. By way of the amendment, the petitioners seek to bring on record the subsequent events of passing of the decree against certain other tenants and obtaining the possession by the landlord of the suit premises. 3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, the case of the landlord is for the need of the entire premises including the room in possession of the petitioners-tenant and therefore, the subsequent event shall not have any bearing on the controversy involved in the suit on merits. 4. The question as to whether the subsequent event has a bearing on the bonafide requirement can be gone into on merits. The application for amendment cannot be denied on that ground. The proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy involved in the suit in respect of bonafide requirement. The lower appellate Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for amendment. The petition will have, therefore, to be allowed. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the appellate Court below Exh.32 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 387 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application Exh. 32 filed by the petitioners is allowed. The petitioners to carry out the amendment within a period of two weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties before the lower appellate Court. The respondent is at liberty to carry out the consequential amendment. The appeal is pending since 2010, the lower appellate Court to decide the appeal within a period of six months from the date of first appearance of the parties.