ORDER : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. 1. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the other application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondent against the petitioners for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and default in payment of arrears of rent and the said application was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 25.05.2022, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 3. Counsel submits that the original landlord of the rented premises was one Manohar Lal who was having three children, i.e., Ram Babu, Shyam Babu and Radha Rani. Counsel submits that his third child, i.e. Radha Rani sold her 1/3rd share in the rented premises to the petitioners by way of a registered sale deed on 08.04.2024 and on the basis of the same, the petitioners have become the co-owners of the rented premises. Counsel submits that subsequent developments took place during pendency of the appeal, hence, under these circumstances, these two applications were submitted, one for taking the registered sale deed on record and other for seeking amendment in the written statement, but without considering the material aspect of the matter that the petitioners have become co-owner of the rented premises, both the applications have been rejected. Counsel submits that subsequent developments which have taken place during pendency of the appeal, are required to be taken on record, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments, raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the respondent has purchased the rented premises from the legal representatives of the original landlord Manohar Lal, i.e., Ram Babu and Shyam Babu, and submitted the application under Section 9 against the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments, raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the respondent has purchased the rented premises from the legal representatives of the original landlord Manohar Lal, i.e., Ram Babu and Shyam Babu, and submitted the application under Section 9 against the petitioners. Counsel submits that reply to the aforesaid application was submitted by the petitioners before the Tribunal and in Para 9, they have admitted that the original landlord, i.e., Manohar lal was having only two children Ram Babu and Shyam Babu who were having their share in the rented premises. 5. Counsel submits that it is an admitted case of the petitioners that there were only two shareholders of the rented premises belonging to the original landlord Manohar Lal and now the petitioners are estopped from changing the stand taken by them in their reply filed before the Tribunal. Counsel submits that if at all, they have purchased one share of the rented premises in question, they cannot claim themselves as co-owners of the property, in the proceedings pending against them under the provisions of the Act of 2001 as their title cannot be determined in the proceedings initiated against them. Counsel submits that these facts have been appreciated by the Appellate Rent Tribunal while rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. This fact is not in dispute that the original application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the respondent against the petitioners before the Rent Tribunal and the same was allowed vide order dated 25.05.2022 on the ground of bona fide need and default in payment of arrears of rent and availability of alternative premises to the petitioners. 8. This fact is also not in dispute that the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal was assailed by the petitioners before the Appellate Rent Tribunal by way of filing appeal in the year 2022 and the same is pending for adjudication on merits since then. If at all, the petitioners have purchased some part of the premises in question at a subsequent stage, i.e., on 08.04.2024, the same has no bearing on the original application submitted by the respondent. If at all, the petitioners have purchased some part of the premises in question at a subsequent stage, i.e., on 08.04.2024, the same has no bearing on the original application submitted by the respondent. The subsequent development which took place during pendency of the appeal are not required to be taken into account as the crucial date for determining the bona fide requirement of the landlord is required to be seen at the time of filing of the eviction application. 9. There is no doubt that the issue of bona fide necessity of a landlord or his/ her family has to be appreciated in the light of the peculiar facts emerging from the facts of a particular case. However, there is no straight jacket formula in this regard. If at all the petitioner has purchased any part of the land in dispute, during pendency of the appeal and after two years of the eviction order being passed by the Tribunal, the subsequent development as stated above has no bearing with the original eviction matter. The eviction order has been passed on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides and cross-examination done by them with each other’s witnesses. After taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly rejected both the applications submitted by the petitioners by passing a reasoned and cogent order which requires no interference of this Court and both the petitions are liable to be and are hereby rejected. 10. However, the question is whether the petitioner should be permitted to amend the written statement at the stage of final hearing of the appeal, under the guise that some subsequent events have taken place, which have no bearing on the appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hasmat Rai & Anr. Versus Raghunath Prasad reported in 1987 (3) SCC 103 has held that the requirement of the landlord must continue to exist till the final determination of the case, and the appeal being continuation of the suit, his requirement also must continue to exist till the final determination of the appeal. Versus Raghunath Prasad reported in 1987 (3) SCC 103 has held that the requirement of the landlord must continue to exist till the final determination of the case, and the appeal being continuation of the suit, his requirement also must continue to exist till the final determination of the appeal. Apart from the fact that the said view was expressed by the Apex Court prior to the amendment in the provision contained in Order VI Rule 17, the said decision has been considered by the Apex Court in the later case of Gaya Prasad Versus Pradeep Srivastava reported in 2001 (2) SCC 604 , in which the Apex Court has observed 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 subsists. During 23 years, after the landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period. 15. The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject-matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused.” 11. In view of the above stated legal position, the Court is of the opinion 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. Though the courts should examine the impact of the subsequent events which might have taken place after filing of such eviction petition, the courts need not consider each and every subsequent event more particularly the one which is not germane to the relief claimed. What is expected from the Courts is to examine the impact of the subsequent event on the right to relief claimed by the party, while considering the application seeking amendment in the pleadings. 12. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.