JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE applicant-defendant has preferred this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, aggrieved by the order passed by the IV civil Judge Class II, Gwalior, dated 12-7-1984, in Civil Suit No. 1-A/82. ( 2. ) THE non-applicant-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the applicant under section 12 (1) and (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and also prayed for a decree of arrears of rent. ( 3. ) THE applicant-defendant filed his written-statement. Therein he stated that the defendant is not in arrears of rent and rent remitted to the landlord by money-order was refused by him. He has further averred in the written-statement that the petitioner-landlord has no genuine requirement of the accommodation, because he is a Government servant and has his own reasonably suitable accommodation. He further averred in the written-statement that the premises consisted originally of three rooms, but in the year 1977, plaintiffs father Mongaram asked back for one room, which he handed over to him. The total rent of the 3 rooms was of Rs. 150/- p. m. and so proportionate rent he has been paying. ( 4. ) AFTER this, the applicant-defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending his written-statement. This application was dismissed by the impugned order by the trial Court. The trial Court held that the proposed amendments are not necessary for adjudication of the real issues and they also raise a new plea in the written-statement ( 5. ) ACCORDING to Shri A. K. Shrivastava, appearing for the applicant, the proposed amendment did not amount to introducing a new case, because the basic facts have already been stated in the written-statement and the proposed amendments are simply their elaboration. He further submitted that the proposed amendments sought were neither mala fide nor belated as the evidence in the proceedings has not yet started. According to him, basis of the proposed amendment was already present in paras 2 (g) and from para 11 to 14 of the written-statement. The elaboration of the basic facts given in the written-statement do not amount to adding of a new case. ( 6. According to him, basis of the proposed amendment was already present in paras 2 (g) and from para 11 to 14 of the written-statement. The elaboration of the basic facts given in the written-statement do not amount to adding of a new case. ( 6. ) SHRI D. K. Katare, learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the proposed amendments are not only belated but they are mala fide on the ground that by such dilatory tactics the tenant-defendant is simply delaying the final adjudication of the real issue. ( 7. ) BE that as it may, we have to look whether the proposed amendments are necessary and bona fide or not. After perusal of the proposed amendments and also the written-statement filed earlier, the proposed amendments are not of the nature, which may change the nature of the case. To me it appears that the proposed amendments are simply by way of elaboration of the facts already pleaded in the written-statement. It has also to be kept in view that it is a trite law that while considering the amendment application, merits of the amendment are not to be considered. On perusal of the written-statement it is clear that the defendant has in the written-statement made an averment, which he is just simply trying to elaborate by the proposed amendment. Plea was already present in the written-statement and the settled law is that the amendment should be allowed within the four walls of the settled restrictions. ( 8. ) THUS, in the case of Shivlal vs. Bheru (1980 (II) WN 60), it is held that the proposed amendment elaborating the case of the defendant or the plea of the defendant, which they had already taken in the written-statement and is not a rigmarole and belated should be allowed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the proposed amendment should be allowed and this part of the impugned order should be set aside. ( 9. ) THE applicant-defendant also filed an application in the trial Court for summoning of 3 witnesses so that they may be in a position to file their respective affidavit in the Court. The applicant prayed for summoning Jeewanlal, Raghuvir and also a witness from the Electricity Department. The trial Court allowed the prayer with regard to the summoning of a person from Electricity Department, but negatived the prayer for summoning Jeewanlal and Raghuvir. The applicant prayed for summoning Jeewanlal, Raghuvir and also a witness from the Electricity Department. The trial Court allowed the prayer with regard to the summoning of a person from Electricity Department, but negatived the prayer for summoning Jeewanlal and Raghuvir. The grievance of the applicant is that these two witnesses are not prepared to come in the Court and swear the affidavit without an order from the Court. ( 10. ) THE trial Court, which is permitted to make enquiry under section 13 (2) of the Act, is of a summary nature and that too by affidavits. It is not obligatory to record the oral evidence to supplement the affidavits filed by the parties. This is an enquiry of summary nature and it is for the party to file the necessary affidavits. In a summary enquiry the parties are not permitted to delay the proceedings, which need immediate disposal according to the desire of the provisions of the Act. ( 11. ) THUS, the part of the impugned order dismissing his application for amendment deserves to be set aside. This prayer of the applicant seems to be correct and justified. So far as the prayer for amendment of the written-statement was concerned, the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. ( 12. ) IN the result, the revision is partly allowed and the part of the impugned order so far as it relates to dismissal of the amendment application is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the amendment, but not to summon Jeewanlal and raghuvir. The delaying tactic of the defendant-tenant is very much apparent. The trial court is directed to expedite the final disposal of the proceedings pending before it. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision partly allowed.