Short Note : 1. Ramdas, non-applicant No. 2, brought an eviction suit against Shri Govind as his tenant and Nawabsingh as sub-tenant. Nawabsingh (defendant No. 2), in his written statement filed on January 20, 1972 answered paragraph 5 (b) of the plaint by admitting that defendant No. 1 had given the shop to defendant No. 2 and alleged that the plaintiff had knowledge of this on that very day but he never raised any objection about this at any time. On February 5, 1974, Nawabsingh made an application for leave to amend the written statement. That application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it changes the nature of the defence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged that what the defendant wanted to amend was merely to clarify what he had already stated. He wanted to allege that sometime in November 1969, the plaintiff, on the intervention of some persons, accepted the defendant No. 2 Nawabsingh would be his direct tenant and there would be no concern with Shri Govind, the original tenant. Held : It is apparent enough that in the original written statement the revision petitioner consistently admitted that in he was sub-tenant having taken possession from Shri Govind tenant directly. Having regard to that written statement, the only issue would he whether this was with the consent of the plaintiff. Now, in the new written statement, the whole front is changed. Now he alleged that the plaintiff accepted him as his tenant directly and also agreed to accept rent from him directly, not only for the period thereafter but also for the past 7 months. Where the defendant changes his front completely and the amendment sought is not bona fide, it cannot be allowed. Modi Spinning Mills v. M/s. Ladda Ram, AIR 1977 SC 680 relied on. Revision dismissed.