Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 479 (ALL)

Umesh Chandra Gupta v. Prescribed Authority(Civil Judge, Seniro Div. )L. Kheri

2016-02-09

ANIL KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. – Heard Shri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anurag Narain, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record. 2. Undisputed facts of the present case are that respondent no.2/Subhash Chandra filed Rent Eviction Case No.11 of 2008 under Section 21 (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. During the pendency of the said matter, petitioners/tenants moved an application for cross-examination of P.W.s 1 and 2, rejected by order dated 06.05.2015, under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be go through the provisions as provided under Section 34 (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which reads as under : - "summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath". 5. Further as per settled position of law while interpreting the said provision, it has been held that the District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any appellate or revising authority, as provided under Section 34 of the Act, for the purposes of holding an enquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under the Act, have got same powers as are vested in the Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in the matter of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath but the same power is discretionary. (See Sardar Charan Singh v. Prescribed Authority, Jhansi, 2001 (UP) RCC 513). 6. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 06.05.2015 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri in Rent Eviction Case No.11 of 2008, the said authority while passing the same held that in a matter under Section 21 (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, there is no provision for cross examination of witnesses, the said finding given by court below is contrary to law, liable to be set aside. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.05.2015 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.05.2015 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside. Further, petitioners/tenants are permitted to cross-examine the PWs 1 and 2 and opposite party no.1 is directed to decide the matter, expeditiously, say, within a period of one year from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment.