IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 322 of 2010. M/s W.G.Masand and Company, Partnership Firm, Arath Bazar, Nazibabad Road, Kotdwar, District Pauri, through Deepak Kumar Mandhian S/O Lat Sri Jethanand Mandhian and another. … Petitioners. Vs. 1. Sri Gautam Manuja @ Lavish aged 28 years S/O Sri Sevak Ram Manuja R/O Kashirampur Kotadwara, District-Pauri and others. …Respondents. Mr. M.C.Pande, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. Date April 12, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order dated 5-3-2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kotdwara in Rent Control Case No. 15 of 2008, Gautam Manuja Vs. M/s W.G.Masand and Co. and others (Annexure-4 to the petition), whereby the amendment application (paper no. 47-C) has been rejected. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent no. 1 has moved an application for release of the shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, which was registered as Rent Case No. 15 of 2008. The amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for amendment of paragraph no. 8 of the written statement and for adding paragraph nos. 8A and 8B to the written statement, mainly on the ground that the landlord does not seem to be the owner of the tenement in question. 2 I have perused the order impugned including the amendment application and the reply/written statement filed by the petitioner. There is no specific denial of the ownership in the written statement. The respondent no. 1 has filed the counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondent no. 1 has annexed the application moved by the petitioners under Section 30 of the Act for permission to deposit the rent, wherein it is mentioned in column no. 7 that the respondent no.1 is the landlord of the tenement in question. The learned Prescribed Authority after detailed observation has rightly rejected the amendment application on the ground that the applicant cannot be permitted to withdraw his own admission. In the earlier order dated 8-12-2008, the Prescribed Authority has also held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties by way of amendment, the petitioners want to withdraw their own admission, which is not permissible under the law. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3