Short Note : This revision petition arises out of a suit instituted by non-applicant No.1 against the applicant and non applicant No. 2 for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and mense profits. When after about 7 years from the institution of the suit, the stage reached for recording evidence of parties and the case was fixed for evidences on 7-1-1976 as application was submitted on behalf of the defendants under Order 6, rule 17 CPC for grant of leave to amend the written statement. By the proposed amendment the defendant wanted to aver that the plaintiffs had about 2½ years ago orally agreed to sell the house to the defendant-applicant for a sum Rs.15,000 but the plaintiff backed out of the agreement, The trial Court rejected this application for amendment by its impugned order on the ground that the amendment sought by the defendant-applicant was not necessary for proper determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant-applicant has preferred this revision petition. Held: Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to the dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant was unable to print out that the amendment proposed to be made in the written statement was necessary for the proper determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, contended that unless he was allowed to amend the pleadings as prayed for, he would not be able to adduce evidence in respect of facts alleged in the application for amendment to show that the plaintiff's need of the suit accommodation was not bonafied. The law of pleadings does not require that evidence should be pleaded. Learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant fairly conceded that to negative the bona fide requirement of the suit accommodation of the plaintiff, the defendant was entitled to adduce such evidence as would go to show that the plaintiff's requirement of the suit accommodation was not bona fide. In these circumstances, it must be held that the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer for amendment. Revision dismissed.