Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This is a writ petition at the behest of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 06 of 2011, Smt. Suraksha Devi v. Sunil Kumar Kataria.

2. The genesis of the case may be briefly encapsulated. The respondent filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) against the petitioner being P.A. Case No. 06 of 2011 for release of the shop in question. The petitioner-tenant file his written statement alleging that the application has been filed with a mala fide motive inasmuch as the respondent had several shop properties in Bijnor itself and therefore, there was no bona fide need for the shop in question. In the written statement, it was further alleged that earlier also the respondent had filed a similar P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in question. The bona fide need as stated was that the son of the respondent, namely, Deepak Khurana was unemployed and married and needed the shop for his personal use. It was stated that the rent of the shop was Rs. 250 per month which was subsequently raised to Rs. 400 per month since November, 2000 and besides the parties had entered into a compromise that the rate of rent would thereafter be enhanced by 15% after every four years and 10 months and no alteration in the shop in question would be made. The compromise was stated to have been entered into on 17.1.2000 and in pursuance of this compromise between the same parties, the P. A. Case No. 02 of 1999 was decreed in terms of the compromise. This fact according to the petitioner, had not been disclosed by the respondent in her plaint application and was brought on record for the first time in the written statement filed by the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, an amendment application under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed on 20.9.2012, wherein, it has been stated that Deepak Khurana son of the respondent has one son named Vibhor Khurana, who was born on 5.7.2001 and one daughter who is about 7 years of age. The petitioner filed his objection to the amendment application on 31.1.2013 again stating that earlier the respondent had filed P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999, which had been decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, wherein, the respondent had agreed that he would not file any application for release of the disputed shop. It was further submitted that the respondent owned several shops in Bijnor and the need of Deepak Khurana was not bona fide. The Prescribed Authority, however, by the impugned order dated 29.7.2013 has allowed the amendment application.

4. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC could not have been allowed inasmuch as by bringing on record certain facts the respondent had set up an entirely new case changing the nature of the plaint case. It was further submitted that the respondent in his application had not disclosed the fact of his filing the earlier P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999, which was decreed in terms of the compromise entered into between the respondent and the petitioner and it was agreed by the respondent that she would not file any future case for release on the basis of bona fide need. The non-disclosure of this fact, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, amounted to deliberate concealment of fact and therefore, the amendment application should have been thrown out on this ground alone. It was further submitted that the need of Deepak Khurana was bona fide because Deepak Khurana had a son, Vibhor Khurana who was born on 5.7.2001 and also had a daughter who is about seven years of age, were new facts. The learne