BRITISH BOOK DEPOT LUCKNOW Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. L. Sharma, J. Heard Mr. Surya Kant learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. K. Shukla learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the writ petition and the annexures thereto.

(2.) IN the release proceedings under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 the petitioner, as a tenant applied for issue of a commission to verify the other tenancies created by the landlady, but the commission refused to verify those facts and consequently the petitioner submitted an application to the Prescribed Authority for summoning certain persons. However, it appears that the petitioner committed mistake by not mentioning the exact names and addresses of the witnesses. So this application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority, as he was of the view that the proceedings under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act are generally decided on the basis of affidavits. The petitioner in his application invited attention of the Prescribed Authority that under Section 34 of the aforesaid Act Prescribed Authority as well has got a power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and to examine him on oath. Therefore the Prescribed Authority did not lack the requisite power to summon the persons concerned. The order of rejection of the application was of course not proved and for the defects the learned Prescribed Authority should have asked the petitioner to furnish the correct names and addresses of the persons intended to be summoned and examined on oath. This duty can be performed by the Prescribed Authority. There is no use of keeping this writ petition pending in this Court for this purpose.

(3.) BOTH the parties are directed to be present before the Prescribed Authority on the next date i. e. 23. 9. 1995 which is said to have been fixed by the Prescribed Authority. Petition disposed of. .