JUDGMENT : G.P. Mathur, J. Parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Landlord-Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of a shop which is in the tenancy of the Petitioner. The tenant-Petitioner moved an application on 23-8-1990 praying that all the witnesses who had filed affidavits on behalf of the landlords may be summoned for the purpose of cross-examination. The landlords opposed the prayer of the tenant by filing an objection and the application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 7-1-1991. Aggrieved the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Section 34(1)(b) of the Act lays down that the Prescribed Authority shall for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the civil courts under the CPC when trying a suit in respect of receiving evidence on affidavits and, therefore, the provisions of Order XIX CPC will become applicable According to the learned Counsel the proviso (inserted by Uttar Pradesh Amendment) to Rule 1 as well as Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XIX clearly gives a right to a party to cross-examine the person who has filed the affidavit Therefore, if an application is moved by a party to a proceeding u/s 21 of the Act to summon a person for the purpose of cross-examination such a prayer has to be granted and cannot be refused. 4. The question as to whether the Prescribed Authority can summon a person who has filed an affidavit for the purpose of cross-examination in proceedings u/s 21(1) of the Act has been considered in a series of decisions by this Court. In Pt. Manni Lal Tripathi v. Smt Kamla Devi 1982 (2) ARC 47, it has been held that such a prayer for summoning the deponent of the affidavit for the purpose of cross-examination should be granted in exceptional cases only. In Pt. Manni Lal Tripathi v. Smt Kamla Devi 1982 (2) ARC 47, it has been held that such a prayer for summoning the deponent of the affidavit for the purpose of cross-examination should be granted in exceptional cases only. In Ram Kumar v. 1st ADJ 1983 (1) ARC 663 it has been held that no party can claim as a matter of right that a person who has filed an affidavit should be summoned for the purpose of cross-examination and that the very object of the Act of Expeditious hearing of the case would be defeated if in every case the prayer for cross-examination of the deponent of an affidavit is accepted. In Associated Cement Co. v. Prescribed Authority 1984 (1) ARC 137 Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. has held that power to summon a deponent of the affidavit for cross-examination has to be exercised sparingly and that such a power should be exercised only when the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that a proper case has been made out for the said purpose. In Radha Krishna v. IVth ADJ 1985 (1) ARC 427 Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. has reiterated that the primary object of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 is expeditious disposal of case and the same would be hindered if the parties are permitted to lead oral evidence. Hon'ble S.D. Agarwal, J. has considered the matter in great detail in Smt. Gulaicha Devi v. Prescribed Authority 1989 (1) ARC 407 and has held as follows: It is only in exceptional cases, it is open to the District Magistrate and the prescribed authority to call a deponent for cross-examination just as it is permissible for this Court in writ petition. The consistent view of this Court is that the normal mode of proceeding in a case under the Act is to receive evidenoe on affidavits from both the parties and to decide the case on the basis of the said affidavits. It is only in a very rare case where the court thinks it necessary in the interests of justice to cross-examine a particular deponent of an affidavit, but it has to be very sparingly exercised in every exceptional circumstances. If such power is exercised, specific reasons for exercise of the powers have to be given by the authority concerned. The cross-examination cannot be ordered as a matter of course. If such power is exercised, specific reasons for exercise of the powers have to be given by the authority concerned. The cross-examination cannot be ordered as a matter of course. Recently in Satish Kumar Sharma v. Prescribed Authority 1991 (1) ARC 438 a learned Single Judge has after consideration of other authorities of our court expressed full agreement with the view taken by Hon'ble S.D. Agarwal, J. in the case of Smt. Gulaicha Devi (supra). 5. Shri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the view taken in Smt Gulaicha Devi and Satish Kumar Sharma aforesaid is not in consonance with the view taken in some other decisions of our court as well as Supreme Court and, therefore, the matter requires consideration by a larger Bench. I would now briefly examine the cases cited by Shri Paul. 6. Learned Counsel placed strong reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudha Devi Vs. M.P. Narayanan and Others, (1988) 3 SCC 366 , wherein it has been held that affidavits are not included in the definition of the word 'evidence' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as evidence only if for sufficient reasons court passes an order under Order XIX Rule 1 CPC In this case the Plaintiff had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which had set aside the ex parte decree passed in her favour by a learned Single Judge on the original side and in support of her statement that the witnesses had concern with the suit property, reliance was placed upon some affidavits filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was in these circumstances that the aforesaid observation was made by the Court. Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Act 13 of 1972 itself permits receiving evidence on affidavits and, therefore, the authority cited has no application to the controversy in hand. The next case relied upon by the learned Counsel in support of his submission is Ch. Abdul Ahmad Khan v. Ch. Mujeebul Hasan 1976 ALJ 194. The question for consideration in this case was as to whether the court has power to summon deponent who has filed an affidavit in support of his application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for his cross-examination at the instance of the other party. Abdul Ahmad Khan v. Ch. Mujeebul Hasan 1976 ALJ 194. The question for consideration in this case was as to whether the court has power to summon deponent who has filed an affidavit in support of his application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for his cross-examination at the instance of the other party. Again this case related to a suit and any observation made therein can have no application to the proceedings u/s 21 of the Act. The other case relied upon by the learned Counsel is Assan Dass v. Prescribed Authority 1981 ALJ (NOC 7) wherein a Division Bench held as follows: A conjoint reading of Rule 1 of Order 19 CPC and Section 34 makes it quite manifest that if the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that it is necessary for the interest of justice and to elicit truth that the deponent of the affidavit should be called upon to appear before it for the purpose of cross-examination the Prescribed Authority has jurisdiction and power to ask such person to appear before it for that purpose. The observation quoted above would show that it was not held that the other side can as a matter of right claim that the deponent of the affidavit should be summoned for the purpose of cross-examination. 7. The fourth case relied upon by counsel for the Petitioner is Ranglal v. Prescribed Authority 1982 UP RCC 519. The facts of the case show that the application moved by the landlord as well as tenant for summoning deponents of the affidavits was initially allowed and parties were directed to produce their witnesses but after adjournment on several dates an order was passed on 1-1-1982 refusing permission to cross-examine the witnesses. The court in these circumstances took the view that the Perscribed Authority could not review its order and should have permitted cross-examination of the deponents of the affidavits if requested by the other side. 8. The fifth case cited by learned Counsel is Om Prakash Sharma v. Prescribed Authority 1985 (1) ARC 72. It was held by Hon'ble K.P. Singh. J that in appropriate cases the prescribed authority can grant right to cross-examine a deponent to a party but the impugned order rejecting permission for cross-examination of the landlord was upheld. 9. The last case cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is Ashfaq Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority 1987 (1) ARC 256. It was held by Hon'ble K.P. Singh. J that in appropriate cases the prescribed authority can grant right to cross-examine a deponent to a party but the impugned order rejecting permission for cross-examination of the landlord was upheld. 9. The last case cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is Ashfaq Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority 1987 (1) ARC 256. In this case the tenant had resisted the release application filed by the landlord on the ground that he had two other buildings. The landlord sought to meet the objection of the tenant by taking a stand that the aforesaid two buildings had been orally gifted by him to another party. The tenant moved an application for permission to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavits to elicit the truth of the aforesaid allegation but his application was rejected. It was on these facts that the following observation was made by the Court: In the instant case as in view of the circumstances that the opposite party No. 2 is placing reliance on oral gift regarding the two houses pointed out by the Petitioner the demand of the Petitioner to examine the deponents of the affidavits filed on behalf of o p No. 2 appears most proper and necessary and this prayer appears to have been unreasonably refused by the Prescribed Authority. Under Muslim Law it is permissible to make an oral gift of Immovable property provided the necessary conditions are fulfilled It is obvious that whether such conditions were fulfilled or not could be ascertained if those who filed affidavits stating about the oral gift were allowed to be cross-examined. 10. A close scrutiny of the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would show that there is no conflict in the view taken by Hon’ble S.D. Agarwal, J. in the case of Smt. Gulaicha Devi (supra) and earlier decisions of this Court. In none of the cases it has been held that a party can claim as a matter of right to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit. The correct view of law, therefore, is that if the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of justice to elicit truth he may summon the deponent of the affidavit for the purpose of cross-examination and that such direction should be made in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. 11. The correct view of law, therefore, is that if the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of justice to elicit truth he may summon the deponent of the affidavit for the purpose of cross-examination and that such direction should be made in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. 11. Now coming to the merits of the application moved by the tenant it may be mentioned that he has prayed that all the five witnesses who had filed affidavits in support of the landlord be summoned for the purpose of cross-examination With regard to Shailendra Kumar Jain and Umesh Chandra Jain the only fact stated was that Shri Jageswar Sahai Advocate, who was appearing as counsel for the landlords was conducting their other cases also With regard to Surendra Suri witness It was stated that he was related to a person who was living in a portion of the house belonging to Respondent No. 3. For Ravindra Prakash Agarwal and Pawan Kumar Jain it was stated that they had not stated as to what was the income from the business of plastic being carried on by them. No special reason has been given in the application as to why it was necessary to summon them for the purpose of cross-examination. The Prescribed Authority has considered the application moved by the Petitioner in detail and has given good reasons for rejecting the same. I entirely agree with the Prescribed Authority that the application was moved with the object to delay the proceedings. In my opinion there was no ground at all for summoning the deponents of the affidavits for the purpose of cross-examination and the application was rightly rejected. 12. In view of the discussions made above there is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The stay order is vacated. Since the case is pending for fairly long time the Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the same expeditiously.