High CourtsSingle Bench

Krishna Murari Agarwal vs Prescribed Authority/A.C.J.M., Mainpuri and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 31 August 1998 · Citation: (1998) 3 AWC 2366

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.C. Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 21(1), 34(1)
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 28009 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 346 words

J.C. Gupta, J.—Heard petitioner''s counsel.

2.

This is tenant''s writ petition directed against the order dated 18.4.98 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the petitioner''s prayer for summoning witnesses for cross-examination. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 which was not maintainable and has been dismissed as such.

3.

Apart from the fact that this writ petition has been filed with a great delay whereby the order made in the month of April. 1998 is being challenged, it is further to be found that the order impugned has been made at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings. While rejecting the said application, the Prescribed Authority has observed that he did not think it necessary to summon the witnesses for cross-examination. It is well settled that proceedings u/s 21 (1) (a) are of a summary nature and for that reason, it has been specifically provided by Section 34 (1) (b) that evidence in such cases is receivable on affidavits. It is only where the Prescribed Authority finds that in the absence of cross-examination of the persons who have filed affidavits a just decision cannot be arrived at, it may permit cross-examination. However, such a prayer cannot be claimed as a right of by any of the parties. In the present case, no satisfactory reasons were disclosed in the application as to why the cross-examination of the witnesses was necessary for just and proper decision of the case. In any view of the matter, if any prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner on account of refusal of his prayer for cross-examination of witnesses, the matter can be carried over to superior court, if and when occasion for the same so arises.

4.

As far as this writ petition is concerned, this Court is not inclined to admit the same at this stage and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. The Prescribed Authority is directed to finalize the proceedings within two months on day-to-day basis. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Prescribed Authority concerned within three days.