Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2031 (ALL)

Mohd. Sajid v. Additional District Judge

2015-07-21

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners hasve challenged the order dated 21.5.2015 passed on the applications 15 Ga and 17 Ga filed under Section 34 read with Rule 22 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder in Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2015. 3. By means of the application 15 Ga, petitioner-tenant has prayed for calling witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 for cross examination on the point of family partition between the co-owners of the disputed accommodation. 4. By means of another application 17 Ga , the prayer has been made to summon the original rent receipts filed in Original Suit No. 406 of 2009 filed by the tenant ( Mohd.Sajid Vs. Riyasat and others) for injunction. 5. The application 15 Ga for cross examination has been rejected on the ground that during the course of oral examination, cross examination was done and there is no provision for further cross examination at the appellate stage.Application has been filed in order to delay the proceedings. 6. The prayer for cross examination is based on the plea of the petitioner-tenant, that the applicant was not landlord of the disputed accommodation.A finding has been recorded regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the applicant by the Prescribed Authority on the basis of a written lease deed which can be challenged by the petitioner in the appeal. No ground has been made out for interference in the order passed by the appellate court which is justified in view of the specific finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority. The contention in the writ petition is that no opportunity for cross examination of three witnesses has been provided by the Prescribed Authority is not based on any substantial evidence. 7. On the another application 17 Ga it is recorded by the appellate court below that there was no justification for calling of record of original suit no. 406 of 2009 which has been filed for injunction.The photocopy of the rent receipts have been filed before the Prescribed Authority. 8. The reason given for summoning the document the alleged original rent receipt filed in original suit no. 406 of 2009 which has been filed for injunction.The photocopy of the rent receipts have been filed before the Prescribed Authority. 8. The reason given for summoning the document the alleged original rent receipt filed in original suit no. 406 of 2009 is also to assert that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and the applicant.This question is to be examined by the appellate court on the basis of document on record, more so the photocopy of the rent receipts are available on record. It is admitted that affidavits have been filed by both the parties in evidence. 9. The proceedings before Rent Control Court are summary in nature and the matter is decided on the basis of affidavits which are taken as evidence. The procedure for holding inquiry or hearing ( any appeal or revision) summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses as are vested in the Civil Court are applicable to its limited extent as provided under Sub-section 1(a) to (g) of Section 34 of the Act. The appellate court can not be said to be unjustified in rejecting the application after consideration of the material on record. 10. However it is made clear that this court has not entered into the merits of the arguments raised by the petitioner regarding relationship between landlord and tenant and the lease deed available on record. 11. All the arguments raised in this writ petition can be taken in the pending appeal. 12. No interference is required in the order impugned.The writ petition is dismissed.