JUDGMENT Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 01.012.2021 passed by the learned additional District Judge, No.1, ajmer in Civil First appeal No.33/2017 whereby an application filed by the petitioner-appellant (tenant) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the written statement, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs Smt. Chand Bai filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner-defendant on the grounds inter-alia reasonable and bonafide necessity of the subject shop for her grandsons Saurabh and Sandeep. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 25.08.2006. During pendency of the civil first appeal, the petitioner filed an application dated 15.09.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the written statement incorporating two subsequent events, i.e., acquisition of alternative accommodation and sale of one shop during pendency of the appeal. The application has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its order dated 01.12.2021, impugned herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that undisputedly these events took place during pendency of the appeal which materially affect the need of the suit shop for grandsons of the original plaintiff and hence, the learned appellate Court erred in dismissing the application. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheshambal (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building & Ors.; (2010) 3 SCC 470 and a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gajendra Singh Lodha Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors.; 2008 (4) WLC Rajasthan 658. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned dated 01.12.2021 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. be allowed. 4. Per contra, leaned counsel for the respondents opposing the prayer submitted that the learned appellate court did not err in rejecting the application as the bonafide necessity has to be seen as existing on the date of filing of the suit and a subsequent event cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the same. 4. Per contra, leaned counsel for the respondents opposing the prayer submitted that the learned appellate court did not err in rejecting the application as the bonafide necessity has to be seen as existing on the date of filing of the suit and a subsequent event cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the same. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mahavir Prasad & anr. Vs. Ratan Lal & anr.; (2009) 15 SCC 61 , Hukum Chandra (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Vs. Nemi Chand Jain & Ors.; (2019) 13 SCC 363 & Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava; (2001) 2 SCC 604 . He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction in favour of the respondents is pending consideration since the year 2006. The application seeking amendment in the written statement has been filed as late as on 15.09.2021 by simply stating that the subsequent events mentioned therein occurred during pendency of the appeal without specifying exactly when these alleged subsequent events have taken place. Insofar as acquisition of another accommodation is concerned, the respondents have specifically stated in the reply that S/Shri Lakhpatraj Sancheti and Jitendra Kumar have acquired possession of the alternative accommodation which is an office. With regard to second subsequent event i.e. sale of a shop situated at Dargah Bazar to Kamal Kucheria by the respondents, it was averred in the reply that the aforesaid shop was jointly owned by all the five brothers and not by father of Saurabh and Sudeep alone for whose necessity, the suit was filed and came to be sold on account of dispute between them. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned appellate Court did not err in rejecting the application as the subsequent event pleaded in the application was not of such nature which obliterated the need expressed by the plaintiff in the suit. It is a well established legal principle that reasonable and bonafide necessity of a landlord has to be seen on the date of the institution of the suit. It is a well established legal principle that reasonable and bonafide necessity of a landlord has to be seen on the date of the institution of the suit. True that a subsequent event having material bearing on the reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord, can be taken into consideration, but, in the present case, this Court is not satisfied from the material on record especially in view of reply to the application seeking amendment in the written statement that the subsequent events pleaded were of such nature which had important bearing on the reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit shop pleaded for grandsons of the original plaintiff. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.