Sangeet Lodha, J.

This petition is directed against order dated 18.5.15 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No.1120/14, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner-tenant under Section 21(3) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") read with Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, seeking leave to amend the reply, stands rejected.

2. Smt. Prem Kumari (since deceased) filed a petition seeking petitioner's eviction from the premises consisting of two shops, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity for her grand sons, Manish and Rahul in terms of the provisions of Section 9(i) of the Act. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. The evidence of the parties stands concluded and the matter is fixed for final arguments.

3. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply stating that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent's son Bhagwat Singh has expired and therefore, the house situated at Bhopalpura wherein Bhagwat Singh was residing with his wife is available to the respondent's grand sons, Rahul for their residence as also for their professional work and therefore, bona fide necessity as pleaded does not survive.

4. The application was contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto. The stand of the respondent is that the premises in question occupied by Bhagwat Singh is a residential building, which cannot be used for commercial purpose and therefore, the bona fide necessity, as pleaded, does not stand eclipsed.

5. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the application preferred by the petitioner, seeking leave to amend the reply has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned, observing that the reasonable bona fide necessity of the landlord has to be seen as on the date of filing the petition and on account of the residential premises having become available during the pendency of the petition, the amendment prayed for, cannot be allowed. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is settled law the subsequent event showing that the bona fide necessity of the premises as pleaded stands eclipsed, has to be taken into account and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, rejecting the application observing that the bona fide necessity of the premises has to be seen as on the date of filing of the petition, is ex facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that after death of Shri Bhagwat Singh, the respondents have acquired share in the property in the house occupied by him and therefore, the alternate accommodation having become available to them, the bona fide necessity as pleaded, does not survive.

7. I have considered the submissions and perused the material on record.

8. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal is empowered to allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. It is guiding principle of amendment that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings shall be generally allowed. The pre trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. Normally, the right to relief must be judged by reference to the date of suit or legal proceedings were instituted but the subsequent development which have bearing on right to relief claimed by the party, such subsequent events may be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings. However, the power to permit amendment of pleadings is discretionary and has to be exercised judicially on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The question with regard to amendment of the reply in the petition seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity, where the bona fide requirement is a