ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby, the application filed by the respondent seeking amendment in the written statement has been allowed, the judgment of Rent Tribunal has been set aside and matter has been remanded back to the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur for taking evidence of the parties and decide the matter afresh. 2. The petitioner filed petition for eviction claiming bona fide necessity of the shop in question. 3. The petition was allowed by the Rent Tribunal by its judgment dated 16.10.2014. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, an application seeking amendment in the reply and for calling Commissioner's report was filed by the respondent, inter alia, with the following averments:- ^^4- ;g gS fd gky gh esa fiNys nl iUnzg fnuksa esa Hkw&Lokfeuh us fuekZ.k dk;Z pyok j[kk gSa] ftlds rgr mlus f'kojru lksuh ls izkIr gqbZ [kkyh nqdku ,oa mlls fpidrh gqbZ nqdku ds chp dh nhokj gVkdj mlesa ls jkLrk cuk fy;k gSa ,oa mDr nqdku ,oa dejs dks ,d dj fn;k gSA ftldk {ks=Qy 200 oxZQqV ls vf/kd gS rFkk mlesa C;wVh ikyZj vkjke ls [kksyk tk ldrk gS] ijUrq HkwLokfeuh us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k feF;k dFku fd;k Fkk fd mDr nqdku ,oa mlls fpidrs gq, dejs dks feyk;k tkuk drbZ laHko ugha gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkh Hkw&Lokfeuh ds bl dFku ij fo'okl dj fy;k] tks orZeku esa djk;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;Z dh jks'kuh esa >wBk iM+ tkrk gSA** 6. Initially, no reply to the application was filed and after hearing the parties, the Appellate Rent Tribunal by its judgment dated 18.11.2015 rejected the application. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B.C.W.P. No.14861/2015, which was decided on 14.01.2016 and the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal was set aside. The petitioner herein was granted opportunity to file reply to the application and the Appellate Rent Tribunal was directed to decide the application afresh. 8. Where after, reply to the said application was filed by the petitioner disputing the averments made in the application. 9. The petitioner herein was granted opportunity to file reply to the application and the Appellate Rent Tribunal was directed to decide the application afresh. 8. Where after, reply to the said application was filed by the petitioner disputing the averments made in the application. 9. Where after, the Appellate Rent Tribunal by its impugned order dated 29.01.2016 (Annexure-11) allowed the application on coming to the conclusion that the allegations made in the application are subsequent events and without taking the same on record the issue cannot be decided and, consequently, allowed the application, set aside the judgment of the Rent Tribunal and remanded back the matter directing leading of evidence by the parties and re-decision by the Rent Tribunal. 10. During the pendency of the present writ petition, after submissions were made by learned counsel for the parties on the averments made in the application, by order dated 07.04.2017 on account of the dispute whether the petitioner has connected the vacant shop, having got it vacated from Shivratan Soni with the vacant portion available with him, in the house, a Court Commissioner was appointed for inspecting the site in question specifically with regard to the fact as to whether the shop, which was got vacated by the petitioner from one Shivratan Soni, has been connected with the portion of the residence, which was next to the said shop. 11. The Commissioner has given his report, which was prepared in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and has concluded that there is no construction at all taken place inside the site in question as well as in the room, which is at the back side of the site in question, nor the site in question is connected with the portion of residence. 12. Copy of the Commissioner report was made available to counsel for the parties as well. No objection to the said report has been filed. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the averments made in the application, the response filed by the petitioner as well as the Commissioner report that the entire plea raised by the respondent is factually incorrect and, therefore, the direction given by the Appellate Rent Tribunal accepting the application on misinterpretation of directions given by this Court, when the matter was earlier remanded, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the Commissioner's report pertaining to the averments made in the application has come on record, the fact remains that the shop in question can be connected with the portion at the back, in the house and utilized for the purpose for which the eviction is being sought and, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, does not call for any interference. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. The amendment was sought by the respondent with the specific averment that the partition in between the shop which was got vacated from Shivratan Soni and another portion in house has been removed and portion has been joined as one premises, which can be easily utilized by the landlord for the purpose of Beauty Parlour, for which, the eviction was being sought. 17. The said aspect was disputed by the petitioner by filing reply. However, the Tribunal apparently misinterpreting the directions given by this Court had observed that this Court by order dated 14.01.2016 directed that without taking into consideration the said subsequent event the issue cannot be decided by the Tribunal, which observations were not made and only the direction was given to hear and decide the application after the reply is filed by the petitioner landlord. 18. In the circumstances of the case, where one of the prayer made by the respondent pertained to calling for the Commissioner's report, this Court called for the report of the Commissioner from a learned counsel of this Court and the Court Commissioner has made specific observations pertaining to the plea raised by the respondent, as was sought from him, as under:- "3. That my aforesaid report is that there is no construction at all taken place inside the site in question as well as in the room which is at the back side of the site in question, nor the site in question is connected with the portion of the residence." 19. That my aforesaid report is that there is no construction at all taken place inside the site in question as well as in the room which is at the back side of the site in question, nor the site in question is connected with the portion of the residence." 19. In view of the above fact situation, which has come on record, the remand of the matter to the Rent Tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining the factual situation, is unnecessary now and the application filed by the respondent with specific averments, as noticed hereinbefore, appears on face to be incorrect and, therefore, the application filed seeking amendment in the written statement deserves to be rejected and the same is, therefore, rejected. 20. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Rent Tribunal shall hear and decide the appeal filed by the respondent in accordance with law. 21. The observations made hereinbefore, only pertain to the averments made in the amendment application and, if any other submission is available to the respondent, the respondent would be free to raise those submissions.