JUDGMENT M.P. Singh 1. The petitioner is tenant of the shop. Respondent No. 2, Waqf Alal Aulad Ramzan Khan is the owner and landlord. Respondent No. 3, Shamsuddin is the Mutawalli. 2. Respondents no. 2 and 3 filed an application for release of the shop under section 21(1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 setting up the bonafide need of the respondent no. 3. The petitioner filed the written statement contesting the said release application on the ground that the need of the respondent No. 3 is neither bonafide nor his need can be taken into consideration since the respondent No. 3 is not the landlord. 3. An application for amendment was filed by the respondent before the Prescribed Authority setting up the need of respondent No. 2 as well. The said amendment application was allowed by means of the order dated 20th April, 1989. The present petition is directed against that order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amendment application changes the nature of the case inasmuch as an entirely different and contradictory need has been set up. I do not agree with the contention. The question of amendment of the pleadings should be considered in such a manner as to enable the court in determining the real question in, controversy between the parties. The settled view of the law is that the amendment should not be allowed in case the nature of the case is changed or it takes away the effect of the admission already made by the party concerned or it causes substantial prejudice to the other side. In the instant case none of these points are attracted. On the other hand by means of this amendment the real controversy will come up on the surface and the Prescribed Authority will be in a better position to dispose of the main dispute. In the case reported in 1982 AWC 201, Haridas Aildai Thadani v. Godrej Rustom Kermani, it has been held :- "The court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. A revisional court also ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment in absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances". 5. In the case of Mst. Hamidan v. Vth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1983 AWC 284 Mr. A revisional court also ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment in absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances". 5. In the case of Mst. Hamidan v. Vth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1983 AWC 284 Mr. Justice N. D. Ojha, as he then was, has held :- "Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of the pleadings unless serious irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side". 6. I find support from these authorities and hold that the amendment has rightly been allowed. It neither changes the nature of the case nor it causes any prejudice to the other side. The petition is devoid of merit. It is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.