Short Note : The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for eviction and arrears of rent from a shop which he had occupied as a tenant of the plaintiff. It was decreed ex-parte. The ex-parte decree was set aside on 27-1-1977 and then the defendant filed the written-statement. The issues were framed and for evidence the case was fixed on 19-11-1977. On 16-11-1977, the plaintiff submitted an application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment was allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order. Held : The peculiar features of this case are that an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant. Then that ex parte decree was set aside and before evidence of the parties started, there was an application for the amendment. The defendant is not prejudiced by amendment because he has got ample opportunity to amend his written statement and to lead evidence. Therefore it cannot be said that the amendment is belated. In the original plaint itself there was a ground under section 12(1)(g) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Whether a decree would have been given in favour of the plaintiff on those allegations only or not cannot be taken into consideration in deciding subsequent application for amendment on that ground. The ground is there already and amendment is made when the plaintiff thinks that something is missing from the grounds; or to explain that ground. Here the plaintiff has made clear the ground which he urged in the plaint itself and; therefore, he has not introduced new ideas or has set up a new case by way of an amendment. It is submitted that the ground of genuine requirement of the brother is mentioned in the notice which was given for termination of the tenancy. This is an additional factor to know what was working in the mind of the plaintiff while he filed the suit. The idea that the shop is required for the use of his brother was right from the beginning in his mind when he served the notice. It finds place in the original plaint. How that need is and what is the relation of that brother with him has been clarified by way of amendment This Court is of the view that such an amendment should always be allowed. It cannot be said that such amendment is malafide also. It finds place in the original plaint. How that need is and what is the relation of that brother with him has been clarified by way of amendment This Court is of the view that such an amendment should always be allowed. It cannot be said that such amendment is malafide also. Radhakishan v. Bhajanlal, C.R. No. 261 of 1972 decided on 15.4.1974, Babulal v. Shyam Sunder, C.R. No. 506 of 1973 decided on 30-11-1973, Chandu Modi v. State of Bihar, 1961 Pat. 298, Nrisingh Prasad v. Steel Products Ltd., AIR 1953 Cal. 15 , Doma v. Dunnabai, 1964 JLJ SN 56, Babulal v. Ghanshyam, 1975 JLJ SN 10, Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills v. Ladharam & Co., AIR 1977 SC 680 , distinguished Amolakchand v. Firm of Sadhuram Tularam, AIR 1954 Nag. 200, Ram Bharose v. Dwarka Preshad, 1975 MPLJ SN 140, referred to. Revision dismissed.