SUBHASH CHANDRA SACHDEV Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) Landlord-Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of a shop which is in the tenancy of the Petitioner. The tenant-Petitioner moved an application on 23-8-1990 praying that all the witnesses who had filed affidavits on behalf of the landlords may be summoned for the purpose of cross-examination. The landlords opposed the prayer of the tenant by filing an objection and the application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 7-1-1991. Aggrieved the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Section 34(1)(b) of the Act lays down that the Prescribed Authority shall for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of receiving evidence on affidavits and, therefore, the provisions of Order XIX Code of Civil Procedure will become applicable According to the learned Counsel the proviso (inserted by U.P. Amendment) to Rule 1 as well as Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XIX clearly gives a right to a party to cross-examine the person who has filed the affidavit Therefore, if an application is moved by a party to a proceeding under Section 21 of the Act to summon a person for the purpose of cross-examination such a prayer has to be granted and cannot be refused.