Short Note : 1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for eviction and arrears of rent from a shop which he has occupied as a tenant of the plaintiff. This suit was filed on 9-11-1973 and it was decreed ex-parte. This ex-parte decree was set aside on 27-1-1977 and then the defendant filed the written statement. In the written statement, he submitted before the trial Court that the case is not covered under section 12 (1) (a) and that for the genuine requirement of his brother, shop cannot be got vacated by the landlord. 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. This amendment was allowed by the trial Court, by the impugned order. Against that, the present revision is filed. Held : Now I have to deal with one more aspect of the case, namely whether it introduces a new case or new ideas. My reply is no. In the original plaint itself, there was a ground under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (genuine requirement). 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 already there, and amendment is made when the plaintiff thinks that something is missing from the ground; 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 not set up a new, case by way of an amendment. It is submitted before me 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. 2. It finds place in the original plaint. Now that need is and what is the relation of that brother with him has been clarified by way of amendment. When such a clarification is made by way of amendment, I think, such an amendment should always be allowed. It cannot be said that such amendment is malafide also. 2. It finds place in the original plaint. Now that need is and what is the relation of that brother with him has been clarified by way of amendment. When such a clarification is made by way of amendment, I think, such an amendment should always be allowed. It cannot be said that such amendment is malafide also. The learned counsel for the applicant only repeatedly said before me that the amendment is mala fide. What mala fides are there, he was not is a position to show. Malafide means bad faith. Not a word was said before me regarding the bad faith of the plaintiff. The trial Court has not rejected the amendment application also on the basis of bad faith. Revision dismissed. Unreported judgment in Civil revision No. 261 of 1972 decided on 15-4-1974, AIR 1961 Pat. 298 , AIR 1953 Cal 15 , 1975 JLJ SN 10, 1964 JLJSN 56 and AIR 1977 SC 60, distinguished. AIR 1954 Nag. 200 and 1975 JLJ-SN 114 relied on.