Short Note : The applicant plaintiff has filed the suit against the non-applicant for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit. The non-applicant has denied the plaint allegations in toto. By seeking amendment in the written statement the applicant wanted to add one more ground to resist the claim of the applicant for eviction. It is averred that the applicant has entered into an agreement to sell the house to the non-applicant and hence the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased between the parties. The trial Court was of the view that by the proposed amendment the non-applicant neither wanted to change the nature of the defence nor he wanted to claim any relief on account of breach of contract. Therefore, the trial Court allowed the amendment. The plaintiff approached the High Court in revision. Held : I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. To my mind there is no ground to make interference in the impugned order by this Court in revision. As the non-applicant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the applicant would be required to prove the same. In case it is proved that the non-applicant was inducted as a tenant, he could by subsequent events prove that the relationship of landlord and tenant has come to an end and the applicant is not entitled to claim eviction. The parties have not entered into evidence as yet and hence no prejudice can be caused to the applicant. For the delay in moving for the amendment the non-applicant has already been saddled with costs. To my mind the impugned order if allowed to stand would not occasion any failure of justice. Revision dismissed.