VIJAY KUMAR Vs. HARI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 19. 4. 2008 passed by Prescribed Authority Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagina, District Bijnor in P. A. Case No. 7 of 2002 Hari Gopal v. Vijay Kumar and others. Through the said order prescribed authority has rejected the application of tenants petitioners for cross-examination of certain witnesses (Alok Kumar and Ravi Bhushan ). The case of the petitioners was that these witnesses were earlier shown to have given affidavits that earlier affidavits were not given by them. The Court wonders how the tenants managed to drag on proceedings under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for six years. The Court below very rightly held that as file was running in arguments hence the effect of conflicting affidavits or statements in the second affidavits would be considered along with the final judgment.

(3.) I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order. In tase prescribed authority finds that both the above witnesses had in fact not filed earlier affidavits in favour of landlord then no reliance should be placed on thesaid affidavits in favour of landlord. However, if the prescribed authority comes to the conclusion that earlier affidavits of Alok Kumar and Ravi Bhusan were in fact sworn by them then after final judgment passed on the release application under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 criminal proceedings against these two witnesses should be initiated.