Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) 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 9.5.2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the deponent for cross-examination at the appellate stage was rejected by the Respondent No. 1. (2) It appears that the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) 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 for release of the building in question. The said application was contested by the petitioner and ultimately, was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 5.11.1992 holding that the need of the landlord was neither genuine nor bona fide. Question of comparative hardship was also decided against him. Challenging the validity of the said order, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed an application for summoning the landlord Brig. Daya Krishna Rastogi who had filed an affidavit in sup port of his case. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority, the respondent No. 1, by its judgment and order dated 9.5.2000, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that, under the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the contradictory and conflicting affidavits filed by the respondent, it was necessary to cross-examine him. The respondent No. 1 appellate Authority erred in law in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. (3) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. (4) It is well settled in law that the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act are to be decided on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. Normally, the oral evidence is not recorded by the Prescribed Authority or by the Appellate Authority. It is, in a particular facts and circumstances, if the Court feels that for resolving the controversy involved in the case, it was necessary to cross-examine anybody, the Court has got full power to summon any of persons who has filed affidavits, for cross-examination. Normally, the oral evidence is not recorded by the Prescribed Authority or by the Appellate Authority. It is, in a particular facts and circumstances, if the Court feels that for resolving the controversy involved in the case, it was necessary to cross-examine anybody, the Court has got full power to summon any of persons who has filed affidavits, for cross-examination. A reference in this regard is made by this Court in Mohammed Rauf vs. Prescribed Authority and other. In the present case the Court below has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. It is, however, observed that in case the respondent No. 2 has filed contradictory and conflicting affidavits, the said facts may be brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority at the time the appeal is heard finally. It may also be noted that before the Prescribed Authority, no application for summoning any person for cross-examination was filed, therefore, there was no justification for the petitioner to make an application for summoning the Respondent No. 2 for cross-examination at appellate stage. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. (5) The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.