IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 17.11.2008. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12785/2008 Shashi Bhushan Agarwal Vs. Judge, Rent Tribunal & Anr. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Hemant Sharma, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.9.2008 by which the application filed by the petitioner under order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement to introduce the subsequent event has been rejected. The subsequent events which the petitioner sought to introduce was to the effect that the Landlord plaintiff who had filed the present suit for personal bona fide necessity had rented out a part of the premises to some tenant during the course and pendency of the present suit. These facts the petitioner defendant wanted to introduce in the pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however frankly submitted that the plaintiff who filed his affidavit as PW-1 has in his cross examination by the defendant petitioner and in the course of his deposition in court has admitted the fact regarding the letting out of the premises though temporarily as per the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. In view of the above, I am of the view that the impugned order having taking into account, the above facts and circumstances does not call for any interference as the fact which the petitioner who is the defendant wants to bring on record is admitted by the plaintiff and the defendant has yet to lead his evidence and since the fact has been admitted by the plaintiff though only partially it would be open for the petitioner defendant to lead the evidence in support of the aforesaid plea and counter the evidence of the plantiff. Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS