(1.) HEARD Tulika Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.M. Saggi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 8.9.2009 and 23.10.2009 by which an application filed by the tenant for cross-examining the landlady has been rejected as well as the son of the landlady on the ground that the contentions raised in the affidavit are not correct, therefore, she may be permitted to cross-examine those persons. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code in view of Section 34 of the Act and Rule 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are applicable, therefore, being such proceedings on an application made by the petitioner, she is entitled to cross-examine the respondents. She placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rang Lal v. Prescribed Authority and another reported in 1982 ARC (1) Page 449. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has held that in such circumstances, if the application has been filed, she may be permitted to cross-examine because under Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Code an affidavit may be permitted to be filed in support of an application. Section 34 of the Act permits the parties to file affidavit and produce witnesses in support of their case. In a case where an affidavit is filed the veracity or the credibility of a witness cannot be tested unless he is subjected to cross-examination and this Court has held that if the application has been rejected, it has to be allowed.
(3.) ON the other hand, Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable as an interlocutory order has been challenged. Only an application for cross-examination has been rejected, therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved, if any final order is passed, it can be challenged in appeal or revision. As regards the applicability Civil Procedure Code in a proceeding under Section 21 of the Act, he placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Khushi Ram Dedwal v. Additional Judge, Small Causes Court/ Prescribed Authority, Meerut and others reported in 1998(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 127 : A.R.C. 1997 (2) Page 674 and relied upon 13 of the said judgment which is quoted below :