Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. As desired by learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of finally at this stage. (2) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.7.2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for summoning Visheshwar Prasad, Bachchoo Lal and Respondent No. 3 for cross-examination was rejected the order dated 2.8.2000 whereby the applications filed by the petitioner to summon the counterfoils of the rent receipts was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. (3) It appears that for release of the building in question under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, two applications were filed. One by the petitioner and the other by Respondent No. 3. During the pendency of the said applications, the petitioner filed the application for summoning Vishesh war Prasad, Baphchoo Lal and Respondent No. 3 for cross-examination. The said application was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondent. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 26.7.2000. Thereafter, another application was filed by the petitioner to summon the counterfoils of the rent receipts. The said application was also dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 2.8.2000. Hence the present petition. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that Respondent No. 1 has not recorded reason for rejecting the aforesaid two applications as required under the law, therefore, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. (5) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the validity of the impugned orders. It was submitted that reasons were recorded by Respondent No. 1 which were sufficient to reject the said applications and that the said applications were apparently frivolous and vexatious and therefore, they were rightly rejected. (6) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. (7) The impugned orders are apparently non-speaking orders. They do not disclose any reasons to reject the applications. (6) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. (7) The impugned orders are apparently non-speaking orders. They do not disclose any reasons to reject the applications. Sub-section (7) of Section 34 of the Act provides as under:- "The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or the appellate or revisional authority shall record reasons for every order made under this Act." (8) It is well settled in law that non-speaking orders are nonest in law. The provision of sub-section (7) of Section 34 of the Act are mandatory in nature. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Respondent No. 1 to record reasons in support of the orders passed by him. In the impugned orders no reasons have been recorded for rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner. The said orders are, therefore, liable to be set aside. (9) The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.7.2000 and 2.8.2000 are hereby quashed. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the applications filed by the petitioner after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Petition allowed.