2025:UHC:303 UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI UWrit Petition (M/S) No. 62 of 2025 8PUth UPU January, 2025 Rajan Transport Company and Another --Petitioners Versus Akhil Kumar --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate : Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioners ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UJUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is tenant in respect of a shop, situate at Arhat Bazar, Dehradun. Respondent filed an application seeking release of the said shop under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short “Act No. 13 of 1972”), which is still pending before learned Prescribed Authority. 2. Petitioner moved an application in the said proceedings, seeking permission to cross-examine the landlord. Petitioner’s request for permission to cross- examine landlord was rejected by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 13.12.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that wife of the proprietor of petitioner No. 1 Firm, had entered into an agreement to sell with the owner of the shop and paid Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Only), as advance at the time of execution of the agreement and thereafter, Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees 1 2025:UHC:303 Forty Five Lakh Only), therefore, wife of petitioner No. 2 has become owner, thus she cannot be dispossessed from the shop in question, and cross-examination of the landlord is necessary to get to the truth of the matter. 4. Learned Prescribed Authority rejected the application made by petitioner and held that wife of petitioner No. 2 is not a tenant in respect of the shop in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Prescribed Authority erred in overlooking the definition of family as given in Section 3(g) of Act No. 13 of 1972. This Court is not impressed by the said submission. Cross examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right in summary proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972. 5. The authorities under Act No. 13 of 1972, do not have all the powers as are vested in Civil Courts under Code of Civil Procedure and they can exercise only certain powers enumerated in Section 34(1) of the said Act. 6. Section 34(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “34. Powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them - (1) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any appellate authority shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely,- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath ; (b) receiving evidence on affidavits ; (c) inspecting a building or its locality, or issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents or local investigation ; (d) requiring the discovery and production of 2 2025:UHC:303 documents; (e) awarding, subject to any rules made in that behalf, costs or special costs to any party or requiring security for costs from any party ; (f) recording a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction and making an order in accordance therewith; (g) any other matter which may be prescribed.” 7. Reading of Section 34(1) of the Act reveals that the District Magistrate or the Prescribed Authority can receive evidence on affidavit in proceedings under the said Act and there is no express provision for cross- examination of a witness. The Prescribed Authority may permit cross examination only when veracity of facts stated in an affidavit is necessary to be tested and the party must give reasons as to why, cross examination is necessary in the facts of a given case. 8. This Court, in the case of Krishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Dr. Narayan Dutt Mishra & another, decided on 03.01.2023 in WPMS No. 1732 of 2022, has held as under:- “4. A perusal of Section 34 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reveals that it confers certain powers upon the Prescribed Authority, which are available to a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, including the power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and receiving evidence on affidavits. Thus, the Prescribed Authority in an appropriate case can permit a party to cross-examine the witnesses of the other party, however, cross-examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. Proceedings under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are summary in nature. Rule 15(3) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 provides that every application for release filed under Section 21(1) shall, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation. The legislature did not provide that oral evidence is to be adduced in support of the case, as contemplated under Order XVIII, Rule 4 C.P.C. but the facts are to be proved on affidavits. If unnecessary cross- examination is permitted, that will only delay the disposal of cases, although, Prescribed Authority in an appropriate 3 2025:UHC:303 case may permit cross-examination of witnesses. The necessity for cross-examination depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not that in every case once the application is filed for cross-examination, it has to be permitted as a matter of course. It is true that veracity of averments made in the affidavits can be tested by cross-examination, but unless it is established that veracity of facts stated in an affidavit is necessary to be tested by cross-examination, prayer for cross examination cannot be granted. The party must give reasons as to which particular case and under what circumstances, such cross- examination is necessary. In the context of each P.A. Case, the purpose of enacting Act No. 13 of 1972 has to be taken into account, while permitting a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit.” 9. Having regard to the nature of proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, which are summary, one cannot claim cross-examination of the other party as a matter of right. Learned Prescribed Authority rightly rejected the application made by petitioner as it found that cross examination on the given point was not necessary. 10. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the order impugned. The Writ Petition, however, is disposed of by providing that release application shall be decided uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned order. _________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 8Pth Mahinder P January, 2025 4 MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.01.11 15:03:59 +05'30'