ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. This is another instance of a reckless petition without any legal foundation filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The background facts are as under. 2. An eviction petition was filed in the year 2004 by the respondent-landlord (hereinafter ‘the landlord’) against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter ‘the tenant’). 3. Section 15 (5) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 2001’) albeit directory in nature provides that all petitions relating to landlord tenants disputes should be disposed of within 240 days of the service on the opposite party. To effectuate the intent of law, the Act of 2001 only requires compliance with the principle of natural justice and eschews the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter ‘the Code of 1908’) except to the extent set out therein. Be as it may, the eviction petition filed by the landlord in the instant case took about 9 years to be disposed of by the judgment dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal. Thereunder a certificate of possession was issued in favour of the landlord and a corresponding eviction order against the tenant. Inevitably, the tenant filed an appeal there against under Section 19 of the Act of 2001. The said appeal was listed for final arguments on 21.08.2013 but for reasons of the heavy docket of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and also the shenanigans of the tenant, the appeal remained pending, adjournments being casually granted. In the circumstances, the landlord approached this Court by way of S.B.C.W.P. No.5801/2017 praying that the Appellate Rent Tribunal be directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously more particularly in view of the fact that Section 19 (8) of the Act of 2001, again only directory, provides that the appeal should be disposed of by the Appellate Rent Tribunal within 180 days from the service on the opposite party. The Court in the circumstances, vide order dated 24.04.2017 directed that the tenant’s appeal pending before the Appellate Rent Tribunal for about 4 years be disposed of within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. 4. The Court in the circumstances, vide order dated 24.04.2017 directed that the tenant’s appeal pending before the Appellate Rent Tribunal for about 4 years be disposed of within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. 4. The tenant however had in the meantime moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 on or about 25.10.2016 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal stating that the landlord had during the pendency of the appeal acquired two shops at Gyan Vihar Colony, Pushkar Road, Ajmer and was carrying business of selling paint therefrom under the name and style “Shri Rupangadiya Color World”. This subsequent event, according to the tenant negated the landlord’s bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop as found by the Rent Tribunal under its impugned judgment dated 19.02.2013, under challenge before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has dismissed the tenant’s said application under the impugned order dated 16.03.2017. Hence this petition. 5. Mr. Rahul Agarwal appearing for the tenant has submitted that the impugned order dated 16.03.2017 is vitiated for the Appellate Rent Tribunal’s failure to exercise its jurisdiction to take into account subsequent event relevant to decision on the question of the landlord’s bona fide and reasonable need for the tenanted premises. The submission is that availability of additional two shops to the tenant and in fact their utilisation ended the landlord’s bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop. Hence the impugned order dated 16.03.2017 be set aside, the application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition be allowed, subsequent event in issue be directed to be taken on record by the Appellate Rent Tribunal which be directed to allow evidence as to subsequent facts to be brought on record and the appeal be directed to be disposed of accordingly. 6. Mr. Veyanktesh Garg appearing for the landlord submitted that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 filed by the tenant before the Appellate Tribunal was only to delay the disposal of the appeal. He submitted that the appeal has been pending before the Appellate Rent Tribunal at the stage of final disposal since 21.08.2013 and that the amendment application was moved only on or about 12.05.2010 after a delay of three years. Mr. He submitted that the appeal has been pending before the Appellate Rent Tribunal at the stage of final disposal since 21.08.2013 and that the amendment application was moved only on or about 12.05.2010 after a delay of three years. Mr. Garg further submitted that in any event the purported subsequent events sought to be brought on record by way of an amendment to the reply to the eviction petition was wholly baseless as it was bald as there was no document or material filed along with the application to even prima facie establish that the landlord had indeed come into possession of the two shops on Pushkar Road as alleged and was engaged in business therefrom. Mr. Garg further submitted that even otherwise the law with regard to the amendments based on subsequent events is that such amendments cannot be allowed on the mere askance as the dispute before the Courts has to be adjudicated on the cause of action whereon the lis was crystallized. He submitted that the only plausible exception to the aforesaid fundamental principle enunciated by the Court’s is where the subsequent event pleaded is prima facie proved to the satisfaction of the Court to eclipse the cause of action on which the lis was commenced. Mr. Garg submitted that in the instant case apart from the denial of two shops at Pushkar Road having came to the landlord’s possession and his being engaged in business therefrom is also the fact that such availability would not eclipse the cause of action of the landlord for the vacation of the tenanted shop on the date of the filing of the eviction petition. This Mr. Garg submitted, was for reason of the well settled legal principle that reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord is a matter of which he is the best judge and on which he cannot be dictated to by the tenant as to the manner of its satisfaction. He submitted that in the facts of the case the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 16.03.2017 under challenge before this Court does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it suffers neither from perversity, patent illegality or irregularity Tanta mounting to an error of jurisdiction. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. He submitted that in the facts of the case the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 16.03.2017 under challenge before this Court does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it suffers neither from perversity, patent illegality or irregularity Tanta mounting to an error of jurisdiction. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. Sadly the eviction petitions which are to be expeditiously disposed of under the Act of 2001 are taking upto a decade to be adjudicated through the Rent Tribunals and Appellate Rent Tribunals. The reason appears to lie in the rampant reckless generalized resort to Code of 1908 albeit the Act of 2001 specifically excludes its applicability to landlord tenant disputes except as provided to a very limited extent and requires only compliance with the principle of natural justice for expedited adjudication of such disputes. In the instant case the application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition was filed at a stage three years subsequent to the tenant’s appeal being put up for final arguments by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 21.08.2013. Besides there was no material of any probative worth with the application more so in the context of specific denial by the landlord of the allegations of his having come into possession of two shops at Pushkar Road wherefrom he was allegedly doing business in the sale of paints. Further all and myriad subsequent events cannot entail amendment of pleading as of right. This is buttressed by the observations of the Apex Court made in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Shri Pradeep Srivastava, 2001 (2) SCC 604 . Para 10 thereof reads as under:- “10. We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsits............” 9. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsits............” 9. I am of the considered view that in the context of the case, the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissing the tenant’s application under Order 6, Rule 17 for amendment to the reply to the eviction petition filed three years subsequent to the appeal being fixed for final argument was wholly within the discretion of the Tribunal. The said discretion in the factual context of the case, cannot be impugned to have been exercised perversely, or being patently illegal, or irregular or having caused manifest injustice to the tenant. No interference therefore is warrant therewith in this petition. 10. It is dismissed.