ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. Under challenge is the judgment dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer as affirmed in the appeal by the Rent Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter ‘Appellate Tribunal’) vide judgment dated 28.09.2016 holding that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter ‘landlord’) required the tenanted premises for his reasonable and bonafide necessity. 2. The only argument made by Mr. S.C. Goyal for the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter ‘tenant’) is that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, another tenanted shop of the landlord was vacated and available to him consequent to which his bonafide and reasonable necessity which prevailed in the passing of impugned judgment dated 30.04.2012 came to an end. It has been submitted that an application under Order 6, Rule 17 was filed before the Appellate Tribunal for amendment to the reply to the eviction petition to bring this fact on record but was dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2016. It has been submitted that in the circumstance the judgment of the Rent Tribunal as affirmed by the Rent Tribunal is vitiated for perversity in overlooking a subsequent event which rendered the purported bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord fake and artificial. 3. Mr. Reasham Bhargava appearing for the landlord submitted that it is well-settled that the findings of the bonafide and reasonable necessity being of fact cannot be interfered except for reasons of perversity patent illegality or any error of jurisdiction. Otherwise interference of this court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted against concurrent judgments of the two Tribunals below. He further submitted that an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition filed by the tenant before the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed by speaking order on 01.06.2016. The said order was never put to challenge and has attained finality. In fact it is not even under challenge in this petition. The red herring of subsequent event is not even on record. And in any event a new fact not before the Tribunal’s below cannot be reckoned for in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the jurisdiction is supervisory not appellate or even revisional. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. It is trite that this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not exercise appellate or revisional powers. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. It is trite that this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not exercise appellate or revisional powers. The power is that of superintendence to be exercised in case of the impugned judgment/orders suffering perversity patent illegality or any error of jurisdiction leading to manifest injustice. In the instant case there was evidence before the Tribunal that the tenanted shop was required by the landlord for his own business for reasons of his inability to continue doing business with his brother and sister-in-law as disputes amongst them obtained. 6. I am of the considered view that the finding of the landlord’s bonafide and reasonable need by the Rent Tribunal as upheld by the Appellate Tribunal is not even remotely perverse. No illegality either attaches thereto. Nor has any been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner-tenant. I am also of the considered view that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC having been dismissed vide the Appellate Tribunal’s dated 01.06.2016 the alleged subsequent event of a shop belonging to the landlord having been meantime vacated cannot be considered. More so as the said order dated 01.06.2016 is not under challenge even in the petition. Further in any event the rights of a landlord required to be adjudicated in a landlord tenant dispute are as crystallized on the commencement of the lis. Subsequent events only if they eclipse the landlord’s case can be taken on record by an amendment. This was not so in the instant case. The purported availability of a shop to the landlord during the currency of the eviction petition cannot entail eclipse of the landlord’s right to eviction of the tenanted shop for his business as articulated when the petition was filed-more so also for reason of the well-settled law that a landlord is the best judge for the fulfillment of his bonafide and reasonable need and cannot be dictated to in regard thereto. No force in the petition. Dismissed.