SMT. GULAICHA DEVI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE property in dispute is a shop. The application was filed on the ground of personal need for setting his son, who was unemployed. This application was filed on April 6, 1987, by the petitioner, who is the landlady. Radha Krishna, respondent No. 2, filed his written statement on August 4, 1987. On September 7, 1987, a replication was filed. On September 14, 1987, the court directed the parties to file their evidence on affidavits. On October 14, 1987, the petitioner filed her evidence in the shape of affidavits of herself, Lakshmi Narain, Sheoji, Sharwan Kumar, Ram Kishore and Ram Nath. Thereafter, the court fixed October 20, 1987, for filing of the evidence on behalf of the tenant. The evidence was not filed and many adjournments were taken. Ultimately, on May 23, 1988, an application was made by the tenant stating therein that the petitioner may be directed to produce all the deponents of the affidavits filed on her behalf for cross -examination before the court and, thereafter only the tenant shall file his affidavits. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated September 22, 1988. The order dated September 22, 1988, has been challenged in the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated September 22, 1986 is an order manifestly erroneous, as the order does not contain any reason as to why all the deponents of the affidavits filed in support of the petitioner's case should be cross -examined. The order has been passed as a matter of course as if it is a civil suit and this cannot be done in proceedings under the provisions of the Act.