1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9141/2007. Kundan Mal. VERSUS Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Tonk and Another. 29.01.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Nitin Jain, for the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Goyal, for the respondent. ***** Matter comes up on the application No.44722 dated 08.12.2008 submitted by the petitioner for substitution. The said application is allowed. The Legal Representatives are ordered to be impleaded. The amended cause title filed along with the application is ordered to be taken on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself was heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-defendant sought to amend the written statement with a view to bring on record the fact that the suit having been filed on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the son of the landlord Faisal Adnan had in fact taken up the employment with the Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company and this fact he wanted to introduce in the written statement to show that the personal necessity of the premises for the son of the landlord did not subsist. 2 Reply to the application was submitted by the respondent-plaintiff that in fact the son for whom it is alleged that he has taken up the employment with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company had in fact left the said job after resigning from the same. Based upon the aforesaid submission made by the respondent-plaintiff, the learned trial court dismissed the application filed for amendment of the written statement. During the course of hearing before this court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in fact after the passing of the impugned order, the son of the landlord again took up the employment with a private enterprise as the resignation has been submitted by the son only with a view to defeat the application submitted by the defendant-petitioner before the learned court below. He submits that soon after the dismissal order on the application was passed, the son of the landlord again took up the employment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that even if it is assumed that the son of the landlord has taken up the employment, it does not affect the right of the landlord to seek eviction of the premises on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. He, however, submits that this court may permit the defendant-petitioner to bring the evidence of this fact regarding the employment of the son of the landlord either by the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or by leading direct evidence 3 in that behalf from the side of the defendant and the plaintiff-landlord would have no objection to the same as any amendment is only aimed at delaying the trial. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that concession made by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would serve the purpose for which the petition has been filed before this court and the application filed before the learned trial court for bringing the aforesaid facts by way of amendment in the written statement. In the light of the same, the learned trial court would permit the petitioner to cross examine the plaintiff and his witnesses for bringing on record the fact with regard to the employment of the son of the landlord and also permit the petitioner-defendant to lead direct evidence in that behalf without insisting on the fact that there is no plea in that behalf in the pleadings. Subject to the above, the writ petition as well as the stay application and the application dated 08.12.2008 stand disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.