Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 576 (UTT)

SATISH CHANDRA AGARWAL v. LAXMI DEVI

2012-09-13

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] Heard Sri Kurban Ali, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 04-09-20 12 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Rent Case No. 12/2011, Lakshmi Devi and others vs. Satish Chandra Agarwal. 3. Perusal of record shows that respondents moved application U/S 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, for the eviction of the petitioner, before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.) Kotdwar which was numbered as P.A. Case No. 12 of 2011 on the ground of bonafide need to start business along with son Jai Prakash Agarwal. The opposite /petitioner filed W.S. Thereafter the applicant respondent No.1 filed her evidence through affidavit and respondent No.3 also filed his affidavit and two more witnesses were also produced before the trial court for evidence. The petitioner moved an application 27-C before the trial court for seeking leave to cross examine the applicant’s witnesses. In the application it was alleged that the landlord is joint family and they are having number of business and respondent No.3 is also carrying on Medical Store and wrong facts have been mentioned in the affidavits therefore, cross examination of the witnesses is essential. 4. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.) after hearing the parties and considering the facts of the case, rejected the application vide impugned order dated 4-9-2012. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 4-9-2012, this writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that petitioner/opposite party wanted to cross examine the witnesses whose evidence has been filed on affidavit and right to cross examine the witness has been provided to opposite party and the right to cross-examine the witness cannot be deprived by the court unless the party who wants to cross-examine the witness relinquish the same. He further contended that the opposite party/petitioner wanted to cross-examine the witnesses on important points narrated in the application and the learned Prescribed Authority has illegally deprived the opposite-party/petitioner from cross examining the witnesses. 7. I do not find any substance in the above arguments of counsel for the petitioner. The Rent Control Act cases are to be decided summarily after taking evidence of parties on affidavit and only in special circumstances opportunity to cross-examine the witness is given. 8. 7. I do not find any substance in the above arguments of counsel for the petitioner. The Rent Control Act cases are to be decided summarily after taking evidence of parties on affidavit and only in special circumstances opportunity to cross-examine the witness is given. 8. The ground taken in the application to cross examine the witnesses is that the applicants are still joint family and they have number of business. The learned Prescribed Authority has given the finding that if a person is a member of joint family and he wants to open his business, the factor of joint family has no effect on the bonafide need of the premises and the bonafide need can be established by adducing the evidence. 9. The another ground to cross-examine the witness taken is that Sri Jai Prakash Agarwal was engaged in medical store. The learned Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding that, on the one hand the opposite party has pleaded that Jai Prakash Agarwal is fully engaged in medical profession and has good earning and on the other hand it has been pleaded that Jai Prakash Agarwal is suffering from serious disease and in the contrary view taken in the application, the opposite party has not come with clean hands and only with a view to delay the proceeding of case the application has been filed. 10. I find that the petitioner has not shown special circumstances to cross examine the witnesses and the learned Prescribed Authority has rightly rejected the application. The petitioner has an opportunity to raise his points before the Prescribed Authority by adducing his evidence in the form of affidavit. 11. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.