Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.8.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar in P.A. Case No. 19 of 2007 (Nand Kumar v. Suresh Chandra), whereby an application (Paper No. 20 "Ga") filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the proceedings under Section 21 (1 )(a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") on the ground that the respondent has claimed status of the petitioner as unauthorized occupant was dismissed, and further allowed the application of the respondent for amendment of the plaint.
(2.) THE relevant facts as set out in the writ petition may be recapitulated as follows; The respondent had initially filed a SCC Suit No. 11 of 2000 in which he claimed the status of the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant in the disputed property i.e. shop. It was further alleged in the said suit that the tenancy was in the name of Brahama Nand and the petitioner was not his tenant. After the death of Brahma Nand, the petitioner is occupying the premises as an unauthorised occupant/sub-tenant for which the respondent reserves the right of initiation of proceedings under Section 12/16 of the Act. The said SCC Suit No. 11 of 2000 filed for arrears of rent and ejectment is still pending in the lower Court. In the meantime, the respondent initiated yet another proceedings under Section 21 of the said Act for release of the disputed premises on the ground of bona fide and genuine need for carrying on the business from the said shop. The said release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 19 of 2007. The petitioner filed his written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application No. 20 "Ga" for dismissal of the release proceedings as not maintainable on the ground that the respondent had claimed the status of the petitioner as unauthorised occupant. The respondent filed his objection to the said application No. 20 "Ga" wherein, inter alia, he stated that the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed an amendment application (Paper No. "28 C") by which he sought an amendment in the release application to add the word "tenant" in the last line of paragraph 3 of the release application. The Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 3.8.2011 rejected the application Paper No. 20 "Ga" and allowed the amendment application of the respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) THE petitioner has submitted that the respondent has never accepted the petitioner as tenant and an issue to this effect was framed in the earlier SCC Suit No. 11 of 2000 filed by the respondent against the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment. It was further submitted that the said amendment is in contradiction to the pleadings of the earlier suit, as such, the present release application is not maintainable. It was further submitted that it is well settled law that party cannot withdraw from its own admission and once the respondent has claimed/alleged the status of the petitioner as unauthorised occupant, it was not open to change his stand in the subsequent proceedings and claim him as his tenant. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority and stated that the petitioner is not withdrawing from his admission. It was further submitted that the amendment is basically clarificatory in nature. It was further submitted that the proceedings under Sections 21 and 20 of the Act are distinct, separate and independent proceedings.;