Short Note : 1. The two non-applicants have purchased the suit house in two parts by separate sale deeds from a common owner and filed the suit for eviction on the ground that they bona fide required the respective portions of the house for their residence. The applicant resisted the suit on various grounds. On 22-3-76 when the case was fixed for the non-applicants' evidence, the applicant gave an application fur amendment of the written statement by which he wanted to add certain pleas in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the written statement. 2. The trial Court after hearing both the parties rejected the amendment application merely on the ground that the defendant had the knowledge that the house in suit was purchased in two different portions by the plaintiffs and that the application for amendment was belated. The defendant has therefore come to the High Court in revision. Held: As regards the proposed amendment in para No.9 of the written statement, the Court below did not give any reason for disallowing it. It appears that the trial Court did not apply its mind to the said proposed amendment. The defendant does not want to set up any new case but wants to resist the claim of the plaintiffs as regards the bona fide requirement by taking the plea that plaintiff Shantabai has made new construction of two rooms and hence she has sufficient accommodation for the purpose of her residence. I am, therefore, of the view that this amendment ought to have been allowed by the Court below, with a view to compensate the plaintiffs for the belated amendment cost could have been saddled on the defendant. 3. The proposed amendments in paras Nos.10 and 11 are not very relevant in the suit for eviction. The defendant has already challenged the bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the proposed amendment in the said paragraphs including the motive of the plaintiffs is not very material and hence it need not be allowed. Revision partly allowed.