( 1 ) THIS revision is directed gainst an order of the trial Court allowing the respondent s application for amendment of the plaint in the suit instituted by the respondent, inter alia, for recovery of possession of the property in dispute from the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The petitioner has been in occupation of the premises in dispute since September, 1963 on the basis of a letter issued by the respondent, the owner of the property, and one of the questions in controversy between the parties is as to the true construction of the letter viz whether the aforesaid letter can be construed as creating a lease in favour of the petitioner or a mere license in respect of the property in dispute. The suit out of which the revision has arisen was tiled by the respondent on October 29, 1969 oddly enough for a "mandatory injunction^ directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute and for recovery of license fee on account of the petitioner s use and occupation of it. The frame of the suit was either because of inartistic drafting of the plaint or was intended to save court fees because the court fees on the value