Short Note : The material facts for the decision of this revision are that the non-applicant in her plaint (paragraph 1) pleaded that the tenancy was monthly commencing from the first of each calendar month. As per paragraph 4 of the plaint, the non-applicant determined the tenancy with effect from May 15 and further directed the tenant to deliver possession at the latest by July 1, 1975. 2. After trial the non-applicant's suit was dismissed. During the pendency of an appeal against this decision, an application under Order VI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed to change the date 15th May which, according to the non-applicant was a typing mistake. This amendment was opposed by the applicant and refused to accept the costs saddled on the non-applicant. Held : The non-applicant-landlady approached the lower court with a definite case that the tenancy was monthly commencing from 1st of each English month and that the tenancy was terminated by 15th of May. The notice also determined the tenancy with effect from 15th May. The fact that the non-applicant gave time to the tenant to vacate by a subsequent date cannot on any count be held to be a date for determination of the tenancy from that day. It is crystal clear that the non-applicant-landlady throughout pleaded that the tenancy would be determined with effect from 15th May went to trial on this pleading and secured a decision from the Court. Having secured the decision on the pleadings, the non-applicant cannot be permitted to turn round and change the pleading at the appellate stage, more so when she had lost the suit. The amendment if allowed will deprive the applicant of the right secured by him. The non-applicant thus intends to introduce a new case which will work against the interest of the applicant. Such a material, pleading which was permitted to remain till the decision of the suit could not be sought to be corrected on mere plea that it was a typing mistake. The application for amendment is not bona fide and was made with the ulterior object of overcoming the adverse finding necessitated by the non-applicant's own pleadings. In these circumstances, the Additional District Judge acted with material irregularity in allowing the amendment, AIR 1957 SC 444 , AIR 1967 SC 96 and AIR 1977 SC 680 relied on. Revision allowed.