S C SACHDEO Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition a caveat has been filed by Sri Swapnil Kumar on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 9th October, 1992 by which the application of the petitioner for cross examining the witnesses of landlord respondents no. 3 to 5 has been rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then submitted tint affidavits cannot be read as evidence and for this placed reliance on a case of Smt. Sudha Devi v. M. P. Narayanan, AIR 1988 SC 1381 where Honourable Supreme Court has observed that normally affidavit are not evidence in proceedings and they may form part of the record only when necessary permission was given to prove the fact by means of affidavit as provided in Order XIX of Civil Procedure Code. In my opinion, the case relied on by the learned counsel is not helpful in the present petition, which arises out of proceedings under U. P. Act no. 13 ef 1972, a special law dealing with tenancy rights. The Legislature with an object to provide suits and prompt reliefs in these matters permitted a departure from the normal rule of receiving evidence from parties in shape of oral and documentary evidence and permitted authorities to accept evidence in shape of affidavits as provided under section 34 (1) (b) of the Act. In the case relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner is clearly distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present case.