KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. NARAYAN DUTT MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is tenant in respect of a building situate at Jwalapur, District Haridwar. Respondents sought release of the said building under Sec. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'Act No. 13 of 1972"), by moving an application before Prescribed Authority.

(2.) Petitioner filed objection/written statement to the release application. He also filed an application under Sec. 34(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, seeking permission to cross-examine the landlords and their witnesses. In the said application, petitioner contended that the landlords have suppressed the information about their immovable property and also one clinic owned by respondent no. 1, at Lucknow. It was further contended that since the building in question is very old, therefore, substantial amount of money would be needed for its re-construction, however, the funds available with the landlords have not been disclosed, therefore, truth can only come out when he is permitted to cross-examine landlords and their witnesses. Prescribed Authority rejected the said application by holding that the issue of availability of funds for re-construction of building is wholly irrelevant and tenant can rebut the statement of landlord and their witnesses by filing reply affidavit. Feeling aggrieved by order passed by Prescribed Authority on 1/7/2022, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the tenant is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses so as to bring out the truth, which cannot be countered through reply affidavit. He further submits that learned Prescribed Authority erred in rejecting petitioner's application for cross-examination, without considering the grounds made therefor. Sec. 34 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is reproduced below:-