JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant No. 1 - petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 115 CPC against the order dated 17.8.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhadol whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner u/O. VI, R. 17 CPC. 2. The short facts necessary to be noticed are that plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the six defendants with the averment that the suit premises were let out by him to Bhikhalal and Chaturbhuj and they started to run 'Manmohan Tea House' in the said premises. A rent note was executed on 27.5.1965 and the conditions agreed between the parties are stated in para 2 of the plaint. In para 3 of the plaint, it was averred that Chaturbhuj separated from Bhikhalal and Bhikhalal also died. After the death of Bhikhalal his two sons namely Chunnilal and Krishna Kumar defendants No. 1 & 2 are running the above Tea House. They have also paid rent upto 31.12.1995. Chaturbhuj has been impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit because initially he took the suit premises on rent with Bhikhalal. The defendants No. 4, 5 & 6 are the daughters of ithikhalal. They have been married and are not in possession of the suit premises. 3. The plaintiff further alleged that he requires the suit premises for the reasonable and bona fide necessity of his on. He also alleged that the defendants have committed defaults in payment of the rent. 4. The defendant No. 1 filed the written statement in which he only admitted the existence of the suit premises but denied all other allegations including the title of the plaintiff. He further stated that Chaturbhuj had never been the tenant. In the additional pleas, the defendant has stated that he himself took the suit premises on rent from the plaintiff in samvat year 2019 at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- per month and he has been doing his business ever since. He has also stated he has been paying the regular rent. 5. By the above amendment application, the defendant No. 1 wanted to add that in Para 13 of the written statement, instead of the fact that he took the suit premises from the plaintiff, he had taken the suit premises on rent from the father of the plaintiff. 6. He has also stated he has been paying the regular rent. 5. By the above amendment application, the defendant No. 1 wanted to add that in Para 13 of the written statement, instead of the fact that he took the suit premises from the plaintiff, he had taken the suit premises on rent from the father of the plaintiff. 6. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties disallowed the above amendment application. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record of the case as also the relevant pleadings of the parties, which were made available to me. 8. It may be stated that it is a settled law that a duty is cast on the Court to allow the amendment in the pleadings when it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy in the suit so that the substantial justice can be done between the parties. The provisions of the CPC, therefore, vests wide discretion on the count in the matter of amendment of pleadings. 9. After taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the amendment sought by the defendant No. 1 - petitioner is not bona fide. It was such a material and important fact regarding taking the suit premises on rent and normally a tenant never forgets the landlord from whom he has taken the premises on rent. Hence, it was not likely that defendant No. 1- petitioner would have committed such a mistake and has forgotten that he had taken the suit premises on rent from the father of the plaintiff and inadvertently wrote that he had taken the suit premises on rent from the plaintiff. 10. The petitioner has conveniently forgotten that in addition to making this averment that he had taken the suit premises on rent from the plaintiff, he has further stated that he has been paying the regular rent. In other words, the clear meaning of this averment is that he has been paying the rent regularly to the plaintiff. 11. In the application, the defendant has not sought any amendment to this effect that he has been paying rent to the father of the plaintiff. He has not even specified whether he paid the rent to the father of the plaintiff or the plaintiff. 11. In the application, the defendant has not sought any amendment to this effect that he has been paying rent to the father of the plaintiff. He has not even specified whether he paid the rent to the father of the plaintiff or the plaintiff. He only stated that he took the above premises on rent in Samvat Year 2019 but the accurate date has not been mentioned. He has also not produced any rent receipt in support of the fact that he had paid rent to the father of the plaintiff. 12. Moreover, if the above amendment is allowed, the defendant would be allowed to set up a new case regarding the existence of a separate tenancy between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant. The fact in issue in the present case is whether the suit premises were let out by the plaintiff to Bhikhalal. The issue whether any tenancy existed between the plaintiff and his father and the defendant No. 1 is not at all relevant. If this amendment is allowed, it would introduce a new case not warranted by the provisions of O. VI, R. 17 CPC. 13. the result, I find no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed summAppeal dismissed. *******