Judgment M.N. Roy, J. The revisional application, which was contested by the defendant opposite party, was at the instance of the plaintiff petitioner, against order no. 36 dated 14th December, 1987, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Baruipur, in Title Suit no. 74 of 1987. By the order as impeached, a prayer for amendment under Or.6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected on contest with costs. 2. Admittedly, in February, 1986, the plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of her reasonable requirement. The suit was initially filed at Alipore and thereafter, transferred to Baruipur, for determination. The suit was one for recovery of khas possession, damages and mesne profits. There is also no doubt or dispute that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was amended in September, 1986 and thereby, in a proceeding of the present nature, the party applying for necessary orders on reasonable requirement, is required to establish that he or she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. 3. In the plaint, such statement was not appropriately mentioned and Mr. Das Gupta pointed out that since the suit was filed in February, 1986 prior to the amendment in September, 1986, as indicated above, the necessary statements were not made or available. 4. The written statement in the proceeding was filed in or about March, 1987 and amongst others, in paragraph 16 of the statement, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff obtained delivery of an adjacent flat, but relet the same at a higher rate and as such, she had no need of it and in fact, wanted to get back the flat in question, for which the concerned suit has been filed, only to relet the same at a higher rate. 5. After going through the order as impeached, it appeared to us that the learned court below was of view that the application in question was not made bona fide and the amendment, as asked for, if allowed, would mean a departure from the pleadings. It was the case of the plaintiff that the amendment as asked for was necessary, to elucidate the point of reasonable requirement after amendment, and also to establish that the plaintiff was compelled to let out the northern flat of the suit premises, for augmenting her monthly income. It was the case of the plaintiff that the amendment as asked for was necessary, to elucidate the point of reasonable requirement after amendment, and also to establish that the plaintiff was compelled to let out the northern flat of the suit premises, for augmenting her monthly income. There is no dispute that the plaintiff, at all material time, owned and still owns two flats. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, Mr. Das Gupta indicated that the plaintiff is a poor widow, having two issues and until she received some employment, the particulars whereof have been pleaded in the petition, she was staying with her parents and since she has been employed now, she wants to live on her own with her issues and independently. 7. Mr. Das Gupta, appearing in support of the application, contended that since the suit was one for reasonable requirement, so even if the proposed amendment was made during the examination in Chief of the plaintiff or even after her father was examined, the nature and character of the suit could not have been changed, if the amendment as asked for, was allowed. In support of his submissions, reference was first made by Mr. Das Gupta to the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1267 . In that case, the plaintiff, who was the manager of a joint family, and was carrying on the business under a business name, and when objection was taken by the defendant that the firm being an unregistered firm, was incompetent to sue, applied for the amendment of the plaint, stating that he himself had intended to file and had in fact filed the action on behalf of the family, in the business name. It has been observed by the Supreme Court, on the facts of such case, that the amendment, as asked for could not have been refused, since the rules and procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. It has been also observed, that the Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying, was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent, which may not be compensated for, by an order of costs. It has been also observed that however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however late the proposed amendment the amendment may be allowed, if it can be made without injustice to the other side. 8. Mr. Das Gupta, secondly referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Rahim Naskar v. Abdul Jabbar Naskar & ors., reported in AIR 1950, Cal. 379, where dealing with the grounds for refusal of an application under Or. 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been observed that if the amendment is necessary to decide the real issue between the parties the amendment should be granted, even though the Court may think that the plaintiff or the defendant, who seeks the amendment will not be able to establish the facts necessary to Support the amendment plea or defence. 9. Then and thirdly, reference was made by Mr. Das Gupta to the observations made in the case of Hasmat Rai & anr v. Raghunath Prasad reported in AIR 1981 SC 1711 and made a specific reference to paragraph 12 of the report, where in the facts of the case, it was observed that in the absence of the pleading as to the extent of landlord's requirement, High Court could allow necessary amendment if the concerned need was established. 10. On the point, Mr. Das Gupta also referred to the case of Suraj Prakas Bhasin v. Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin & Ors, reported in AIR 1981 SC 415 and particular reference was made by him to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the report, on the basis whereof, it cannot be disputed that in case of amendment, liberal view should be taken. 11. Apart from the above, Mr. Das Gupta referred to the observations in the case of Baishnaba Charan Acharyya & anr. 11. Apart from the above, Mr. Das Gupta referred to the observations in the case of Baishnaba Charan Acharyya & anr. v. Nityananda Satapathy reported in AIR 1969, Orissa 34, where, in a suit for recovery of loan, on the basis of insufficiently stamped hand note, an application for amendment of the plaint was made, for making out the case that the suit was based on the original cause of the action on the oral loan and that the hand-note was executed as evidence thereof, the learned Judge of the Orissa High Court observed that even such amendment and at that stage could also be allowed. 12. If we consider the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shri Iswar Jagannath Deb Jew v. Fatik Chandra Seal & ors. reported in AIR 1972 Cal, 372, which was also referred to by Mr. Das Gupta, we will find that the observations made in AIR 1969 SC 1267 and AIR 1950 Cal. 379 have been followed and in that case, written statement was allowed to be amended to clarify and elucidate facts already in the pleadings and to formulate new questions of law from such facts for decision by the Court. 13. While dwelling on the subject, a further reference was made by Mr. Das Gupta to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Seth Nanak Chand Shadiram v. Amin Chand Pyarilal, reported in AIR 1970 Cal, page 8, on the basis whereof, it is clear that amendments in elucidation or amplification of plaint averments can be allowed. 14. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the defendant-opposite party and opposing this application, firstly contended that this Court should not make any interference since the amendment as asked for, was not a bona fide one rather the same was mala fide. To establish such statement, Mr. Mukherjee referred to the contents of paragraph 16 of the Written Statement, which we have earlier indicated, and submitted that if the amendment as asked for was a bona fide one, then the plaintiff and ample opportunities to meet the defence as taken and pleaded by his client and to disprove the fact that she had other reasonably suitable accommodation available. The Written Statement was admittedly filed in March, 1987. The Written Statement was admittedly filed in March, 1987. He submitted further that if the plaintiff was acting in a bona fide manner, then immediately after the incorporation of amendment in September, 1986 to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the requirement whereof have been indicated earlier, she should have made the application for amendment, instead of waiting till the examination of her father was over and she was being cross-examined, and more particularly, when in her cross-examination, it was elucidated that she had other reasonable and suitable accommodation available. To establish that in such a case, which according to him was not a bona fide one, for asking for amendment, no order should be made, Mr. Mukherjee referred to an unreported decision of this Court in C.R. 2047 of 1985 dated 21.1.86 in Sri L.P. Handa v. Sri B.P. Majumdar. In the case, A.K. Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was), in the facts of the same, has observed that amendment which was asked for was not a bona fide one and if the amendment as asked for was not bona fide, this Court should not make any interference in a proceeding under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case before the said learned Single Judge, the plaintiff by his amendment wanted to improve his case of reasonable requirement on the allegation that further requirement accrued in the year 1982, when he was promoted as a General Manager. His lordship has ob3erved that unfortunately this requirement, if it was a genuine one, should have been pleaded by way of amendment much earlier than, when the suit was taken up for trial and the plaintiff had been examined for four days. 15. Mr. Das Gupta submitted that the said unreported decision is distinguishable on facts and in the facts of the present case, when the plaintiff had no cause or any occasion, since her proceeding was for ejectment and for obtaining khas possession of the premises for her own use and occupation, there could not have been any mala fide intention on her part, to have the proceeding delayed, by asking for the concerned amendment. 16. Mr. Mukherjee, in support of his submissions, also referred to a judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Sudarshan Prosad & ors. v. Radha Kishun Ram, reported in AIR 1982 All 218 . 16. Mr. Mukherjee, in support of his submissions, also referred to a judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Sudarshan Prosad & ors. v. Radha Kishun Ram, reported in AIR 1982 All 218 . There, the suit was one for setting aside the sale of a Joint Hindu family property, claiming that such sale was without any legal necessity and amendment which was asked for, was refused on the ground that the same was belated and not a bona fide one. 17. Mr. Mukherjee, then referred to the observations in the case of National Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mool Singh Gurdev Singh, reported in AIR 1951 Simla 227 (a Single Bench judgment of the Simla Bench of the Punjab High Court), where dealing with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been observed that where the defendant, applying for amendment of the written statement, was in possession of the information on which the proposed amendment was sought, the time when the written statement was filed, the application should be dismissed, holding the same to be belated. In fact, Mr. Mukherjee specifically submitted that the fact of availability of the other reasonably suitable accommodation was not only known to the plaintiff, but such fact was also made categorically known to her by the statements as made in the written statement and as such, her attempt to have the application for amendment filed at the stage as indicated hereinbefore, was not bona fide. 18. Lastly Mr. Mukherjee referred to another judgment of a learned Single Bench of Patna High Court, in the case of Chandu Modi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1961 Patna 298, on the basis whereof, it is apparent that through an application for amendment, a new ease for the purpose of filling up lacuna, cannot be allowed. 19. On the basis of the decisions cited at the Bar we find that in a case of the present nature, the Courts should be slow in refusing amendment or while dealing with application for amendment, the attitude should be liberal and that too for the purpose of doing substantial justice and not to do any injustice. 19. On the basis of the decisions cited at the Bar we find that in a case of the present nature, the Courts should be slow in refusing amendment or while dealing with application for amendment, the attitude should be liberal and that too for the purpose of doing substantial justice and not to do any injustice. We feel that since the suit in the instant case was filed earlier than the incorporation of the amendment in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the particulars whereof we have indicated earlier, and since there was admitted change of the jurisdiction of the Court from Alipore to Baruipur and consequently necessary change of lawyers, the plaintiff had sufficient cause for asking for incorporation of the statements as sought to he made now, through the application for amendment and her action in filing the said application for amendment, cannot also be considered to be mala fide. We have earlier indicated the reasons why her action cannot be deemed or treated to be mala fide. We also feel that her application cannot be treated as a belated on and such being the position, the decisions, as cited by Mr. Mukherjee, will not be or any help or assistance in this case. 20. The suit in the instant case was admittedly one on reasonable requirement and was filed prior to the amendment of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in 1976 and even though such ground of availability of other reasonable suitable accommodation to the plaintiff was indicated and taken by the defendant in the written statement, the plaintiff did not take any steps to have her plaint/pleading amended, till the was being cross-examined and specifically on the grounds as stated and taken in defence. It would have been better if the plaintiff was diligent enough to try and incorporate the proposed amendments earlier. It would have been better if the plaintiff was diligent enough to try and incorporate the proposed amendments earlier. But, since the did not do so or had taken necessary steps in the matter earlier, would not, in the facts of the case, be considered as mala fide and more particularly when the rules of procedure in a matter like the present one, are intended to do justice in a given case and not to refuse necessary and substantial relief, became of such or any mistake, negligence and inadvertence and more particularly when, the amendment as asked for, could have been tried on the bash of the available pleadings and since the amendments as sought to be incorporated now, was necessary to decide the lis or the real issue between the parties, duly and finally and more particularly when, in case of allowing application for amendment, depending on the facts of each case, the Courts are not denuded of taking a liberal view and more so, when, the amendment as asked for, is felt to clarify and elucidate the real position and facts, which are already in the pleadings either directly or indirectly. The suit in the instant case being one on reasonable requirement, so it cannot be stated that the relevant fact, claim and pleading was not on record and further amendment as asked for, was really intended for the purpose of elucidating and clarifying such facts and position. 21. In the facts of this case as indicated earlier, we cannot also hold that the amendment as asked for was not bona fide or was intended to delay the proceeding by the plaintiff, as her suit was one for eviction on the ground of her reasonable requirement of the premises. 22. As such, we allow this application and set aside the order as impeached. But, we have it on record, that for this amendment, which we are allowing now, the defendant opposite party would be entitled to get cost of Rs.250/- (rupees two hundred and fifty), and the learned Court below should now give the defendant-opposite party, appropriate opportunities to have supplementary written statement, if any, filed, and thereafter, to decide the issues in accordance with law, after taking necessary evidence. The Rule is thus made absolute. Sudhangsu Sekhar Ganguly, J. : I agree. q with costs to the opposite party.