This Court in t he case of Krishan Kum ar Sharm a v. Dr. Narayan Dut t Mishra anot her, decided on

Akhil Kum ar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Advocat e : Mr. Ram j i Shrivast ava, learned counsel for pet it ioners - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Respondent UJUD GM EN T

1. Pet it ioner is t enant in respect of a shop, sit uat e at Arhat Bazar, Dehradun. Respondent filed an applicat ion seeking release of t he said shop under Sect ion 21( 1) ( a) of U.P. Urban Building ( Regulat ion of Let t ing, Rent and Evict ion) Act , 1972 ( for short “Act No. 13 of 1972” ) , is st ill pending before learned Prescribed Aut horit y.

2. Pet it ioner m oved an applicat ion t he said proceedings, seeking perm ission t o cross- exam ine t he landlord. Pet it ioner ’s request for perm ission t o cross- exam ine landlord was rej ect ed by Prescribed Aut horit y vide order dat ed 13.12.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, pet it ioners have approached t his Court .

3. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioners subm it s t hat wife of t he propriet or of pet it ioner No. 1 Firm , had ent ered int o an agreem ent t o sell wit h t he owner of t he shop and paid Rs. 16,00,000/ - ( Rupees Sixt een Lakh Only) , as advance at t he t im e of execut ion of t he agreem ent and t hereaft er, Rs. 45,00,000/ - ( Rupees 1 Fort y Five Lakh Only) , t herefore, wife of pet it ioner No. 2 has becom e owner, t hus she cannot be dispossessed from t he shop in quest ion, and cross- exam inat ion of t he landlord is necessary t o get t o t he t rut h of t he m at t er.

4. Learned Prescribed Aut horit y rej ect ed t he applicat ion m ade by pet it ioner and held t hat wife of pet it ioner No. 2 is not a t enant in respect of t he shop in quest ion. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat learned Prescribed Aut horit y erred in overlooking t he definit ion of fam ily as given in Sect ion 3( g) of Act No. 13 of 1972. This Court is not im pressed by t he said subm ission. Cross exam inat ion cannot be claim ed as a m at t er of right in sum m ary proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972.

5. The aut horit ies under Act No. 13 of 1972, do not have all t he powers as are vest ed in Civil Court s under Code of Civil Procedure and t hey can exercise only cert ain powers enum erat ed in Sect ion 34( 1) of t he said Act .

6. Sect ion 34( 1) of t he Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “ 34. Powers of various aut horit ies and procedure t o be followed by t hem - ( 1) The t he prescribed aut horit y or any appellat e aut horit y shall for t he purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal under t his Act have t he sam e powers as are vest ed in t he Civil Court under t he Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when t rying a suit , in respect of t he following m at t ers, nam ely,- Dist rict Magist rat e, ( a) ( b) ( c) ( d) sum m oning and enforcing t he at t endance of any person and exam ining him on oat h ; receiving evidence on affidavit s ; inspect ing a building or issuing com m issions for t he exam inat ion of wit nesses or docum ent s or local invest igat ion ; requiring localit y, or product ion discovery t he it s 2 docum ent s; awarding, subj ect t o any rules m ade in t hat behalf, cost s or special cost s t o any part y or requiring securit y for cost s from any part y ; lawful agreem ent , com prom ise or recording a sat isfact ion and m aking an order in accordance t herewit h; any ot her m at t er which m ay be prescribed.” ( e) ( f) ( g)

7. Reading of Sect ion 34( 1) of t he Act reveals t hat t he Dist rict Magist rat e or t he Prescribed Aut horit y can receive evidence on affidavit in proceedings under t he said Act and t here is no express provision for cross- exam inat ion of a wit ness. The Prescribed Aut horit y m ay perm it cross exam inat ion only when veracit y of fact s st at ed in an affidavit is necessary t o be t est ed and t he part y m ust give reasons as t o why, cross exam inat ion is necessary in t he fact s of a given case.

8. This Court , in t he case of Krishan Kum ar Sharm a Vs. Dr. Narayan Dut t Mishra & anot her, decided on

03.01.2023 in WPMS No. 1732 of 2022, has held as under: - “ 4. A perusal of Sect ion 34 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reveals t hat it confers cert ain powers upon t he Prescribed Aut horit y, w hich ar e available t o a Civil Court under t he Code of Civil Procedure, including t he power of sum m oning and enforcing t he at t endance of any person and exam ining him on oat h and receiving evidence on affidavit s. Thus, t he Prescribed Aut horit y in an appropriat e case can perm it a part y t o cross- exam ine t he w it nesses of t he ot her part y, however, cross- exam inat ion cannot be claim ed as a m at t er of right .

5. Proceedings under U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulat ion of Let t ing, Rent and Evict ion) Act , 1972 are sum m ary in nat ure. Rule 15( 3) of U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulat ion of Let t ing, Rent and Evict ion) Rules, 1972 provides t hat every applicat ion for release filed under Sect ion 21( 1) shall, as far as possible, be decided w it hin t w o m ont hs from t he dat e of it s present at ion. The legislat ure did not provide t hat oral evidence is t o be adduced in support of t he case, as cont em plat ed under Order XVI I I , Rule 4 C.P.C. but t he fact s are t o be proved on affidavit s. I f unnecessary cross- exam inat ion is perm it t ed, t hat w ill only delay t he disposal of cases, alt hough, Prescribed Aut horit y in an appropriat e 3 case m ay perm it cross- exam inat ion of wit nesses. The necessit y for cross- exam inat ion depends upon t he fact s and circum st ances of each case. I t is not t hat in every case once t he applicat ion is filed for cross- exam inat ion, it has t o be perm it t ed as a m at t er of course. I t is t rue t hat veracit y of averm ent s m ade in t he affidavit s can be t est ed by cross- exam inat ion, but unless it is est ablished t hat veracit y of fact s st at ed in an affidav it is necessary t o be t est ed by cross- exam inat ion, prayer for cross exam inat ion cannot be grant ed. The part y m ust give t o which part icular case and under what circum st ances, such cross- exam inat ion is necessary. I n t he cont ext of each P.A. Case, t he purpose of enact ing Act No. 13 of 1972 has t o be t aken int o account , while perm it t ing a part y t o cross- exam ine t he deponent of an affidavit .” reasons as

9. Having regard t o t he nat ure of proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, which are sum m ary, one cannot claim cross- exam inat ion of t he ot her part y as a m at t er of right . Learned Prescribed Aut horit y right ly rej ect ed t he applicat ion m ade by pet it ioner as it found t hat cross exam inat ion on t he given point was not necessary.

10. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference wit h t he order im pugned. The Writ Pet it ion, however, is disposed of by providing t hat release applicat ion shall be decided uninfluenced by any observat ion m ade in t he im pugned order. _________________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. t h Dt : 8 P Mahinder P January, 2025 MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH 4