Judgment : SUDHIR Narain, J. 1. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 10-11-1995 whereby respondent No. 1 has rejected the application of the petitioners for cross-examination of the landlord-respondent No. 2 and the witnesses who had filed affidavits in support of his case. 2. RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for release of the disputed premises against the petitioners on the allegation that they are tenants. Me requires the accommodation in question for his residential purpose. He was working as Principal in Government College, Didwana. He has retired from service and is living at Dhaulpur in a rented house. He is aged about 60 years and wants to shift to Fatehabad to live in the premises in question. The petitioner filed written statement and it was denied that the premises in question is bona fide required by respondent No. 2 for residential purposes. They alleged that they are carrying on business of general merchandise. The landlord remained in Rajasthan Education Service and retired from service on 31st July, 1982 and since then he is living at Dhaulpur. He has further sold one residential three storeyed building of ten rooms which was situate at Chauraha Mohalia, Fatehabad and the property sold by the landlord was in vacant position. He instead of shifting to Fatehabad sold the property. Respondent No. 2 filed affidavit in support of his version and also filed the affidavit of Gopai Prasad Sharma of Dhaulpur. One fchagwan Das Lekhpal and Sri Bhagwan Singh, real brother of respondent No. 2, also filed affidavits. The petitioner filed application dated 10th July, 1995 to summon these persons for the purpose of cross-examination. The Prescribed Authority has rejected this application by the impugned order dated 10-11-1995. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent No. 1 acted illegally in rejecting the application without considering the merits of the case. Once the affidavit is filed by a party, the other party has a right to cross-examine to test the veracity of the affidavit. 4. IN the various decisions of this Court it has been held that cross-examination may be permitted only when there are special circumstances existing in the case. It is not whenever a party files an application for cross-examination it should be allowed. 4. IN the various decisions of this Court it has been held that cross-examination may be permitted only when there are special circumstances existing in the case. It is not whenever a party files an application for cross-examination it should be allowed. Section 34 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides the powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them. Section 34 (1) (a) gives power to the authority concerned for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and clause (b) confers the power of receiving evidence on affidavits. The affidavits which are accepted as evidence have to be in the same manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (6) of Section 34 of the Act provides that affidavits to be filed in any proceeding under this Act shall be made in the same manner and conform to the same requirements as affidavits filed under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable. 5. THERE is U. P. amendment substituting the proviso to Order XIX, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure which provides that if it appears to the Court, whether at the instance of either party or otherwise and whether before or after the filing of such affidavit, that the production of such witness for cross- examination is necessary and his attendance can be procured, the Court shall order the attendance of such witness, whereupon the witness may be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. 6. THE power has been conferred under Section 34 clause (b) on the authority concerned to permit the person to lead evidence on affidavit. THE proviso as substituted by U. P. amendment clearly provides that it is for the Court to permit cross-examination if it thinks necessary. The authority must be satisfied that the cross-examination is necessary on a particular fact in the case. In the present case the application has been filed by the landlord on the allegation that he retired from service and wants to live in the disputed premises. The authority must be satisfied that the cross-examination is necessary on a particular fact in the case. In the present case the application has been filed by the landlord on the allegation that he retired from service and wants to live in the disputed premises. The fact that he has retired from service is not denied. The petitioner has stated various facts in his written statement and the fact that the landlord respondent has sold certain property which was situate in Fatehabad and that disproved his bona fide need. It is the averment of the petitioner and he can also adduce evidence by affidavit. There is no special circumstance which requires a matter to be cross-examined. If on a particular question it is required that answer should be obtained, it is open to the parties to serve interrogatories and after inter rogatories is served the Prescribed Authority may direct such interrogatories to be served on respondent No. 2 as it thinks proper on such question which necessarily requires an answer from respondent No. 2. It is not that in every case whenever an application is filed for cross-examination the Prescribed Authority has to allow the same. 7. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that this Court has referred the question as the right of a party to cross-examine in the case of Khushi Ram v. Additional District Judge and others, 1995 (1) ARC 308. The Court was of the opinion that the right of cross-examination is a valuable right and normally a party should not be deprived of this right unless for exceptional reason. It is urged that the matter has been referred to a larger Bench by the learned Single Judge and therefore this Court should admit the writ petition and stay further" proceedings till the question is answered by a larger Bench. 8. IN Rang Lal v. Prescribed Authority and another, 1982 (1) ARC 1449, learned Single Judge took the view that the application for cross-examination should be permitted to test the veracity or the credibility of a witness who filed an affidavit under Order XIX, Rule 2, CPC. IN Pandit Manni Lal Thpathi v. Kamla Devi and others, 1982 (2) ARC 471, it was held that the power of cross-examination should be exercised in exceptional cases. IN Pandit Manni Lal Thpathi v. Kamla Devi and others, 1982 (2) ARC 471, it was held that the power of cross-examination should be exercised in exceptional cases. IN M/s. Associated Cement Co., Kanpur v. Prescribed Authority (IX Additional Munsif) Kanpur and others, 1984 (1) ARC 137, Hon'ble R. M. Sahai, J. held that discretionary power of cross-examination should be exercised sparingly by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act. The same view was reiterated in Radha Kishan v. IV Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai and others, 1985 (1) ARC 427. IN Ashfaq Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge) Rampur and another, 1987 (1) ARC 356, wherein the right to the property was based on oral gift, it was held that the Prescribed Authority should have allowed the application for cross-examination. The decisions in Rang Lal v. Prescribed Authority and anothers, 1982 (1) ARC 449 and Ashfaq Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority, 1987 (1) ARC 356 came up for consideration in Smt. Gulaicha Devi v. Prescribed Authority (Munsif) Bastt and another, 1989 (1) ARC 407, and after examining the various decisions it was held that the application for cross-examination should be allowed only in exceptional cases for which the reason should be given by the Prescribed Authority. 9. THE matter again came up for consideration in Satish Kumar Sharma v. Prescribed Authority, 1991 (1) ARC 438, and the two decisions referred to above were again considered and held that the cross- examination should be permitted in exceptional cases. THE view expressed in Rang Lal and Ashfaq Ahmad cases were distinguished. Again these two decisions were considered and the view taken earlier in Satish Kumar Sharma's case was followed in Subhash Chand Sachdeva v. District Judge, Etah, 1992 (2) ARC 253. 10. IN the case of Khushi Ram learned Single Judge held that there are two conflicting views and the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. One view is that the cross-examination should be permitted only in exceptional cases and another view as expressed in Khushi Ram case is that the application should normally be allowed but it can be rejected for exceptional reasons. It is, however, clear that there is still a discretion with the Prescribed Authority or the District Magistrate as the case may be exercising the power under Section 34 (1) of the Act to permit cross-examination. It is, however, clear that there is still a discretion with the Prescribed Authority or the District Magistrate as the case may be exercising the power under Section 34 (1) of the Act to permit cross-examination. What standard should be applied while disposing the application is only a matter which is subject-matter of consideration before the larger Bench as has been referred to by the learned Single Judge. There may be situation where an application is filed only to delay the proceedings or with oblique motive, the application can be rejected. Secondly before exercising the power the authority has to apply his mind keeping in view the facts of the case and the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their cases. Learned Single Judge referred the matter to a larger Bench on 12th April, 1995 but the same Judge upheld the order rejecting the application for cross-examination in another decision in Smt. Premlata and anothers v. Prescribed Authority/additional Civil Judge-I, Muzaffarnagar, 1995 (1) ARC 452 , on April 4, 1995. In S. Surjeet Singh v. Prescribed Authority III Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar and another, 1995 (2) ARC 153, the referring order was noticed and it was held that the Court in a particular set of circumstances can reject applications for cross-examination. 11. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Sushil Chandra Pandey v. Factory Manager, New Victoria Mills and another, 1982 UPLBEC 211, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view that if a writ petition has been admitted on the similar facts and circumstances and another writ petition is filed it should be normally admitted. Similar view was expressed in Vir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 SC 1345 . These cases have no application to the facts in the present case. The exercise of power to permit cross-examination is discretionary. Only the extent of its power is the subject-matter of consideration before the larger Bench. It is to be still examined on the facts of each case. 12. IN the last learned counsel for the petitioner urged that principle of natural justice requires that opportunity should be given (or cross-examination. It is contended that in a departmental proceeding when a delinquent appears, he is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who are produced on behalf of the department. 12. IN the last learned counsel for the petitioner urged that principle of natural justice requires that opportunity should be given (or cross-examination. It is contended that in a departmental proceeding when a delinquent appears, he is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who are produced on behalf of the department. He has placed reliance upon Union of India v. T. R. Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 882. This decision has no application where a particular procedure has been provided under Act No. XIII of 1972. The parties are given opportunity to adduce evidence by filing affidavits. IN the departmental proceedings no such procedure is provided. In the present case, it has been found that the application for cross-examination of the deponent of affidavits filed on behalf of the landlord respondent has rightly been rejected, It is not a fit case for interference in the order of the Prescribed Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.