JUDGMENT A. B. Stivastava, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (tenant) has sought quashing of order dated 21-8-1993 of the respondent no. 1 whereby he refused permission to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent no. 2 (landlord). 2. The landlord moved an application under section 21 (1) (b) of Act 13 of 1972 praying for release of house no 166/189 Dondipur Allahabad on the ground that it is in dilapidated condition and is required for demolition and new construction. The application was contested by the tenant who denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition and new construction and pleaded that only eastern wall of the house has been damaged due to the act of the landlord of demolishing the adjoining wall of another house situate towards east of this building. Before the prescribed authority, the landlord filed affidavit of photographer, Abdul Lateef, along with certain photographs of the house in question, Anil Kumar Gupta an architect along with his report regarding alleged dilapidated condition of the building, and of one Amirul Islam. The petitioner tenant filed his own affidavit in rebuttal. 3. The petitioner moved an application for permission to cross examine the three witnesses aforesaid of the landlord. This application was rejected by the impugned order. 4. Since counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at admission stage. As would appear from the above narration, the most question arising for determination in the proceedings before the prescribed authority is, whether the building in question is in a dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and new construction. In other words, the condition of the building does not admit of repairs. Such a question could be decided on the basis of evidence giving specific description of the condition of the structure as a whole, as well as the roofs. A perusal of the report of Anil Kumar Gupta, the architect filed along with affidavit, on behalf of the landlord would go to show that the report though specifically says about the building being dilapidated and also stating that the roof is in a dilapidated condition and the walls are bent and cracked, does not state as to what portion has cracked and at what level, top, middle or bottom. He has also not shown precise position of the cracks etc. in his map. Under these circumstances the cross examination of this witness becomes very much necessary to elucidate the full facts on the above points in order to arrive at definite conclusion either way. It thus is a case where cross examination of the expert is in the interest of both the parties, as that would lead to a really correct conclusion on the question as to whether or not, the building is In a dilapidated condition. It is all more so in view of the fact that on record this is only one experts report, the petitioner tenant having chosen not to file counter report of any other expert;. In refusing the cross examination of this witness thus learned prescribed authority committed apparent error of law, requiring interference by this court 5. As far as the cross examination of the two other witnesses Abdul Lateef and Ameerul Islam is concerned no such justification exists and the petitioner already having exercised his right of rebuttal by filing the counter affidavit, no useful purpose will be served by resorting to their cross examination. 6. In the result this writ petition deserves to be allowed in part. The petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that prayer of the petitioner of cross examination of the architect Anil Kumar Gupta, the deponent on behalf of the landlord, is allowed. Since the case is of the year 1992 and the question involved is about the dilapidated condition or otherwise of the building in question, learned prescribed authority shall dispose of the matter expeditiously, avoiding adjournment unless it is absolutely necessary, and in that event also for not more than 10 to 15 days. Costs easy. Petition partly allowed.