Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 428 (UTT)

Mahendra Pal Sharma v. Prescribed Authority

2023-07-26

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. The proceedings under the Act No. 13 of 1972, are governed by the provisions contained under section 34 of the Act, to be read with Rule 22, as it has been framed under the Act. By virtue of the provisions contained under section 34 of the Act, only part of the procedural aspect of the CPC has been made applicable over the proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, and it does not include within it, the aspect of permitting the cross-examination of the witnesses in the summary proceedings of the Act No. 13 of 1972, and that too of the proceedings which are being held under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, which in accordance with the Rule 15 (3), has had to be decided as a summary proceedings within the specified time frame therein. In the summary proceedings, an elaborate trial is not expected, nor is statutorily required to be conducted. 2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent/landlord, is an applicant to the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, against which, an objection was filed by the petitioner/tenant. Thereafter, it is contended by the tenant/petitioner that the landlord has submitted the list of documents, which was inclusive of the rent agreement of 02.07.2022, which necessitated for the present petitioner to file an application paper no. 76Ka, for seeking permission, to cross-examine the respondent no. 2, before the learned Prescribed Authority. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 15.07.2022. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention; qua the finding which has been recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority while rejecting the application paper no. 76Ka, whereby declining him an opportunity of cross-examination, to the present petitioner, the court has observed that the documents, which has been filed by the landlord on 02.07.2022, the entire burden to prove the same to make it acceptable to be read in evidence is to be discharged by the landlord himself, when the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority itself is carried, and for that purposes, if at all the tenant wants to controvert any of the documents, to be contrary to facts, it will be open for him to file an appropriate affidavit in accordance with the provisions contained under section 34 of the Act, for which an elaborate cross examination is not required. 4. The observations, which has been made thereof in the impugned order, is not a complete closure of opportunity of the applicant/tenant from controverting the contents of the documents filed by the landlord on 02.07.2022, but rather the burden to prove its contents, has been shifted upon the landlord, and if at all, any contravention to its contents was to be made by the petitioner/tenant, it was left open for him to be done by way of filing of an affidavit, which is permissible under section 34 of Act No. 13 of 1972. 5. In the rent control proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, since cross-examination, being not a procedural aspect attracted and made applicable under section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the same cannot be adopted to or claimed as a matter of course. However, by qualifying his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment reported in Ashfaq Ahmad vs. Prescribed Authority and Another, 1987 All. L.J. 1452 and particularly, he has made a reference to the contents of paragraph 12 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “12. To my mind the Prescribed Authority has not approached the problem from correct angle, therefore, the legal position has been made clear and it is expected that the Prescribed Authority would afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses whose affidavits have been filed in support of the claim of the opposite party No. 2 regarding oral gift, if the petitioner again applied in this behalf.” 6. In fact, if the observations which were made in paragraph 12 is read with the preceding paragraphs of the said judgment as to whether section 34 of the Act, permits to attract Order 19 Rule 2 of the CPC, in a case, where affidavit is to be filed for the proof and veracity or credibility, of the evidences to be adduced by the parties. The said observation made in paragraph 12, observing thereof, that an opportunity to cross-examination “could” be given to the opposite party pertaining to the “oral gift”, in fact, was factually under a different context altogether, and the observations made therein in paragraph 12 of the said judgment was not a ratio descendi, but rather it was an observation which was exclusively made in the factual context of the said case. 7. 7. To better answer the argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a reference is required to be made, as to what is the scope and recourse, which the Court should adopt in the proceedings which are held under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, for the purposes of enabling the cross-examination of the witnesses in relation to the document was dealt with by the coordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 2022 (2) UD 462, Dr. Dinesh Kumar vs. Smt. Kiran Suri and the Court has observed in paragraphs 5 to 7, that the basic intention of the Legislature, in the light of the provisions contained under section 34 of the Act to be read with Rule 22, and as already observed by this Court above, the provisions contained under Order 19 Rule 1, has not been made applicable. Hence, invariably the cross-examination should not be permitted in the trial of the summary cases. Paragraph 5 to 7, are extracted hereunder: “5. This Court does not find any infirmity in the view taken by learned Prescribed Authority. Section 34 of Act No. 13 of 1972 confers certain powers upon Prescribed Authority, which are available to a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, which include the power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and receiving evidence on affidavits. 6. Proceedings under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are summary in nature. Rule 15(3) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 provides that every application for release filed under Section 21(1) shall, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation. The legislature did not provide that oral evidence is to be adduced in support of the case, as contemplated under Order XVIII, Rule 4 C.P.C. but the facts are to be proved on affidavits. If unnecessary cross-examination is permitted, that will only delay the disposal of cases, although, Prescribed Authority in an appropriate case may permit cross-examination of witnesses. The necessity for cross-examination depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not that in every case once the application is filed for cross-examination, it has to be permitted as a matter of course. The necessity for cross-examination depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not that in every case once the application is filed for cross-examination, it has to be permitted as a matter of course. It is true that veracity of averments made in the affidavits can be tested by cross-examination, but unless it is established that veracity of facts stated in an affidavit is necessary to be tested by cross-examination, prayer for cross examination cannot be granted. The party must give reasons as to which particular case and under what circumstances, such cross-examination is necessary. In the context of each P.A. Case, the purpose of enacting Act No. 13 of 1972 has to be taken into account, while permitting a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit. 7. A coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 172 of 2007, Raj Kumar vs. Om Prakash Sharma and Others has held as under: “6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that from a reading of Section 34 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed there-under, it is evident that the Prescribed Authority has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 34 of the Act as also Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the said Act. The applications under Section 21 of the Act have to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties by filing affidavits. Oral evidence is not contemplated under these provisions. No doubt, power has been given to the authorities to summon and enforce attendance of any person and to examine him on oath. The intention of the legislative was that the matters pending before various authorities under the said Act should only be decided on the basis of affidavits filed in evidence by the rival parties. Section 34(1)(b) of the Act confers power on the authorities concerned to receive evidence on affidavits and the principle, which is applicable under Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be made applicable, which empowers the Court to summon a deponent of an affidavit for his cross-examination. Section 34(1)(b) of the Act confers power on the authorities concerned to receive evidence on affidavits and the principle, which is applicable under Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be made applicable, which empowers the Court to summon a deponent of an affidavit for his cross-examination. The authorities have power to permit any party to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit, but the exercise of this power should be on the principle as laid down under Order 19, Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure as amended by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976. Thus, the Court has discretion to permit for cross-examination when such cross-examination is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. If a party intends to cross-examine, he has to give necessary facts in the application as to why the cross-examination is necessary. Cross-examination cannot be ordered as a matter of course. It is for the Prescribed Authority to give reasons either for allowing or refusing the cross-examination. It can thus be inferred that discretion to permit cross-examination of deponent may be exercised when it is not possible for the party to contradict the fact by filing evidence on affidavit. I am fortified in my view by the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Khushi Ram Dedwal vs. Additional Judge, Small Causes Court/Prescribed Authority, Meerut and Others, 1997 (2) ARC 674 wherein it has been observed that “If a party wants to cross-examine, he has to give the necessary facts in the application as to why the cross-examination is necessary. The Prescribed Authority will give the reasons either for allowing or refusing the cross-examination. The reasons disclosed in the order of the Prescribed Authority will show whether he acted fairly or not. Considering every aspect of the matter the authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can permit the cross-examination of a deponent of an affidavit only when it is necessary in the case.” It was further observed in that “the legislature did not provide that oral evidence to be adduced in support of the case as contemplated under O. XVIII, Rule 4 Code of civil Procedure But the facts are to be proved on affidavits. If unnecessary cross-examination is permitted, that will only hamper the expeditious disposal of the cases.” In the case of Smt. Gulaicha Devi vs. Prescribed Authority (Munsif) Basti and Another, 1989 (1) ARC 407 it has been held that evidence in the matter of release application has to be filed in the shape of affidavit and normally the Prescribed Authority should not permit cross-examination of deponent. Such power to permit the cross-examination should be exercised in exceptional cases only and in such case, Prescribed Authority is required to give reasons. The Allahabad High Court in the Case of Smt. Fahmida Shoeb (Dead) vs. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) and Another, 2005 (61) A.L.R. 310 has held that it is a condition precedent that while allowing the application for cross-examination, it is incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to point out in the order exceptional circumstances which are necessary for such permission. 7. In the case at hand, the copy of application under Section 34 read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and Order 19, Rule 1 Code of civil Procedure has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. In this application the Petitioner, the main contention of the tenant is that the witnesses have not disclosed material facts especially the fact that the Applicant-landlords have released shop in another matter. It has also been contended that the landlords' witness Om Prakash has not given the details of assets and income in the affidavits. The acquaintance of the witnesses Rameshwar and Balkishan with the landlords has not been disclosed in the affidavits by the said witnesses. The learned Prescribed Authority in his impugned order has dealt with all the aspects and material factual position of the case came to the conclusion that the Petitioner-Opposite Party has not set out concrete and satisfactory reasons so as to entitle him to cross-examine the witnesses. The Prescribed Authority has also observed that it is open to the Petitioner-Opposite Party to controvert the statements on oath given by the landlords' witnesses by filing affidavits in rebuttal. The Prescribed Authority has not committed any manifest error by not allowing the cross-examination of the deponents of affidavits to the Petitioner-tenant. The Prescribed Authority has recorded reasons for refusing the permission to cross-examine the deponents in so many words in the impugned order. The Prescribed Authority has not committed any manifest error by not allowing the cross-examination of the deponents of affidavits to the Petitioner-tenant. The Prescribed Authority has recorded reasons for refusing the permission to cross-examine the deponents in so many words in the impugned order. Apart from above, it is significant to mention here that the primary objective of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is expeditious disposal of the cases. I do not find any perversity or any manifest error of law in the order dated 1-3-2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority in rejecting the application, paper No. 59-C, moved by the Petitioner for permission to cross-examine the deponents.” 8. Almost an identical view has been taken by Allahabad High Court in the judgment reported in where the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the matters of Khushi Ram Dedwal vs. Additional Judge, SCC Meerut and Others, 1998 (1) ALR 32 wherein, while drawing the implication about the impact of the provisions contained under section 34 (1) (b) to be read with Order 19 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, dealing with the effect and need of the cross-examination, the Court has observed in paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, that cross-examination in the summary proceedings should not be permitted, as a matter of right or as a matter of course, without there being any valid justification particularly when, there is no procedural deprivation to the petitioner in the instant case, because he is not supposed to shoulder to discharge the burden to prove the documents, which has been relied by the landlord, rather the burden of proving the same has been shifted upon the landlord, and hence, particularly, in the light of the observations made in paragraph 13, which was yet again based upon the judgment reported in Assam Dass vs. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow and Another, 1996 (2) ARC 92, it was observed that the provisions contained under Order 19 of the CPC, are not applicable over the proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, and hence the cross-examination cannot be claimed in the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, are extracted hereunder: 6. The relevant paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, are extracted hereunder: 6. Section 34 (1) (b) of the Act permits the authorities under the Act to receive evidence on affidavits and clause (a) confers power on the authorities for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath. The cross-examination of a deponent of an affidavit is thus not excluded. The authorities have power to permit any party to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit. The exercise of power to permit cross-examination should be on the principle as laid down under Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 which came into force on 1.1.1977. The proviso to Rule 1 of Order XIX was substituted by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976. Substituted proviso reads as follows: “Provided that if it appears to the Court, whether at the instance of either party or otherwise and whether before or after the filing of such affidavit, that the production of such witness for cross-examination is necessary and his attendance can be procured, the Court shall order the attendance of such witness, whereupon the witness may be examined, cross-examined and re-examined.” 7. The Court has been given power under the said proviso for production of the deponent for cross-examination, if it is necessary. The provision itself is clear that the Court has discretion to permit for cross-examination and such discretion should be exercised only when cross-examination is necessary. The necessity for cross-examination will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If an application is filed by a party for cross-examination of a deponent by an affidavit, he must give reasons why cross-examination is necessary. It is not in every case that once an application is filed for cross-examination it has to be permitted as a general rule. It is true that the veracity of averments made in affidavits can be tested by cross-examination but unless it is established that the veracity of facts stated in the affidavit is necessary to be tested by cross-examination, the party must give reasons as to which particular fact and under what circumstances and for what reasons such cross-examination is necessary in the context and facts and circumstances of the case. U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applies for determining certain rights of the landlord, tenant and such other persons who claim the benefit under the provisions of the said Act. This Act itself provides the manner in which the evidence is to be taken by the parties concerned. The purpose of the enactment of any of the provisions has to be taken into account while permitting a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit. 10. The various Benches of this Court considered the rights of a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit, in the proceedings under the Act. There is no divergent view that a deponent of an affidavit cannot be cross-examined or there is no power with the authorities to permit cross-examination of a deponent. The only question remains as to what are the circumstances under which the cross-examination can be permitted. 11. In M/s. Associated Cement Companies Limited, Kanpur vs. Prescribed Authority/IXth Additional Munsif, Kanpur and Another, 1984 (1) ARC 137. Hon'ble R.M. Sahal, J. (as he then was) held that the discretionary power has to be exercised sparingly by the prescribed authority while deciding the release application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act. 12. The same view was followed in Smt. Gulaicha Devl vs. Prescribed Authority (Munsif), Basti and Another, 1989 (1) ARC 407, Satish Kumar Sharma vs. Prescribed Authority (A.C.J.M.) Dehradun and Another, 1991 (1) ARC 438 and Subhosh Chandra Sachdeva vs. District Judge, Etah and Others, 1992 (2) ARC 253. In these cases, the decision in Rang Lal vs. Prescribed Authority and Another, 1982 (1) ARC 449, was considered and it was held that the prescribed authority had earlier allowed the application for cross-examination but later on without any justification refused permission to his cross-examine the deponent of the affidavits and in that context an observation was made that in a case where an affidavit is filed the veracity or credibility of witness cannot be decided unless the deponent of the affidavit is subjected to cross-examination. The decision in Ashraf Ahmad vs. Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge), Rampur and Another, 1987 (1) ARC 356, wherein on facts it was found that the dispute was relating to the oral gift on which the landlord was claiming the right In the property, the prescribed authority in those circumstances should have permitted the cross-examination. These two cases were distinguished on facts. 13. These two cases were distinguished on facts. 13. The proviso to Order 19, Rule 1 has used the words “cross-examination is necessary.” The effect of this proviso was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Assam Dass vs. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow and Another and it was held that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the cross-examination is necessary, it can allow a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit. The Court observed: “In our view a conjoint reading of Rule 1 of Order XIX, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 34 of the Act makes it quite manifest that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice and to elicit truth that the deponent of the affidavit should be called upon to appear before it for the purpose of cross-examination, the prescribed authority has jurisdiction and power to ask such person to appear before it for that purpose.” When cross-examination is necessary, it has to be decided in the context of factual backdrop of the case and in the context of nature of the proceedings under Act. The application under Section 21 (1) of the Act is to be decided expeditiously. Rule 15 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act lays down that every application under Section 21 (1) of the Act shall, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation. The Legislature did not provide that oral evidence to be adduced in support of the case as contemplated under Order XVIII. Rule 4, C.P.C. but the facts are to be proved on affidavits. If unnecessary cross-examination is permitted, that will only hamper the expeditious disposal of the cases. The Hon. Supreme Court emphasised this aspect in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra). Considering this provision Hon'ble R.M. Sanai J. as he then was, in the case of Radha Krishan vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Jalaun and Others, 1985 (1) ARC 427, observed that the primary objective of Act No. 13 of 1972 is expeditious disposal of the cases. It may be hindered if the parties are permitted to lead oral evidence. Considering this provision Hon'ble R.M. Sanai J. as he then was, in the case of Radha Krishan vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Jalaun and Others, 1985 (1) ARC 427, observed that the primary objective of Act No. 13 of 1972 is expeditious disposal of the cases. It may be hindered if the parties are permitted to lead oral evidence. In the case of Smt. Gutaicha Devi (supra) the following observation was made: “If oral evidence was contemplated to be filed and if the deponent of every affidavit was permitted to be cross-examined then it would not be possible to decide the release application under Section 21 (1) of the Act within a period of two months.” It may be that when the case is being decided, a party files an application for cross-examination only to delay the proceedings. The Court has to examine in each case as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, cross-examination is necessary and the application filed for cross-examination is bona fide. If the matter relates as to the extent of the accommodation or the matter which could be verified on inspection, the cross-examination will be hardly relevant. If the question arises regarding title of the property which can be decided on the basis of the documentary evidence, the cross-examination will not be relevant as the fact can be proved by documentary evidence which can be annexed with the affidavit. 14. The principle that a party is to be permitted to cross-examine on the principle of natural justice cannot be accepted in every case. Oral examination in all cases is not contemplated. Even in disciplinary inquiries in exceptional cases oral evidence may not be insisted upon as held in Hira Nath Mishra vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 and State of Haryana vs. Rattar Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 . If a party wants to cross-examine, he has to give the necessary facts in the application as to why the cross-examination is necessary. The prescribed authority will give the reasons either for allowing or refusing the cross-examination. The reasons disclosed in the order of the prescribed authority will show whether he acted fairly or not. If a party wants to cross-examine, he has to give the necessary facts in the application as to why the cross-examination is necessary. The prescribed authority will give the reasons either for allowing or refusing the cross-examination. The reasons disclosed in the order of the prescribed authority will show whether he acted fairly or not. Considering every aspect of the matter, the authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can permit the cross-examination of a deponent of an affidavit only when it is necessary in the case.” 9. A similar view has been taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Tahir vs. Gopal Krishna Verma, 2017 (2) UD 673 and the Court while on the basis of the earlier ratio as rendered in the matters of the Harjinder Singh, has extracted the gravamen of the controversy about the impact and the necessity of the cross-examination, and the Court has deprecated the process of cross-examination in PA cases, and the relevant observations has been made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment, which are extracted hereunder: “(7) This Court in Para 5 of the judgment rendered by it in Harjinder Singh @ Billa vs. Harvansh Lal, 2016 (2) U.D. 370, has held as under: “The gravamen of controversy, in the instant case, is - whether such cross-examination is necessary or not? Respondent’s witnesses, who are his son and daughter-in-law, are living in America. They have already filed their affidavits before learned Prescribed Authority, who has discussed the issue, although in brief. The Prescribed Authority did not find it to be a fit case in which the cross-examination of the respondent’s witnesses was desired. Under the law, the Court has been given power, in a P.A. case, for production of the deponent for cross-examination, if it is necessary. The provision itself is clear that the court has it’s discretion to permit for cross-examination and such discretion is exercised only when cross-examination is necessary. The necessity for cross-examination depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not in every case that once the application is filed for cross-examination, it has to be permitted as a general rule. The necessity for cross-examination depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not in every case that once the application is filed for cross-examination, it has to be permitted as a general rule. It is true that the veracity of averments made in the affidavits can be tested by cross-examination, but unless it is established that the veracity of facts stated in the affidavit is necessary to be tested by cross-examination, the party must give reasons as to which particular facts and under what circumstances and reasons, such cross-examination is necessary. In the context of each P.A. case, the purpose of enacting U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 has to be taken into account, while permitting the party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit.” Aforesaid decision was given by this Court on the basis of scores of other rulings on the subject matter in hand. (8) This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned Prescribed Authority. This Court is also unable to take a view contrary to what was taken by learned Prescribed Authority.” 10. The Court while concluding the same has observed that the discretion of the Court as vested in it, as constituted under the Act No. 13 of 1972, for permitting the cross-examination, though it is not judicially or procedurally provided under section 34 of Act No. 13 of 1972, and the provisions of Order 19 of CPC, has not been attracted, thus the discretion is not to be invariably exercised in all the cases, until and unless, there is an extreme prejudice is to be caused. The veracity of the averment, to deny the pleadings in the proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, could be still done by filing an affidavit in contravention to it, and for that purposes, no permission as such for cross-examination is at all required to be given to test the document or an individual, which is relied by the parties in the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court too in the judgment reported in Shamim Akhtar vs. Iqbal Ahmad and Another, 2000 (8) SCC 123 which were dealing with the proceedings under the U.P. Rent Act, and that too being the proceedings almost akin to the one at hand. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court too in the judgment reported in Shamim Akhtar vs. Iqbal Ahmad and Another, 2000 (8) SCC 123 which were dealing with the proceedings under the U.P. Rent Act, and that too being the proceedings almost akin to the one at hand. Had, dealt with the aspect about the impact of the cross-examination in paragraph 12 of the said judgment, therein, the Court has observed that the proceedings under the Act depends upon the proof or a disproof of a title claimed by the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, and that could be exclusively determined on the basis of the affidavits which are to be filed, for which no cross-examination, as such, is required in order to avoid a prolonged proceedings in contravention to the intention contained under sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules. 12. Owing to the above facts, since it is not the legislative intention! because the Legislature by its deliberate act having excluded to include Order 19 under section 34 of the Act! the cross-examination invariably cannot be permitted in all the summary proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, and particularly, in the context of the instant case, where no real prejudice, as such, is caused to the present petitioner, as such. 13. because the Legislature by its deliberate act having excluded to include Order 19 under section 34 of the Act! the cross-examination invariably cannot be permitted in all the summary proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, and particularly, in the context of the instant case, where no real prejudice, as such, is caused to the present petitioner, as such. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the cross-examination by a tenant cannot be resorted to as a matter of course or as of a right and that too without justifying its reason except for the fact in the instant case, for which the exception has been attempted to be carved out on the basis of the documents filed by the landlord in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, and there are two logics, which has been assigned by the Prescribed Authority that the party, who relies upon the document in support of his contention, the burden of prove the same and its contents, has to be discharged by the person relying the document in the light of the provisions contained under section 101 of the Evidence Act, and more particularly, in the instant case, when there is not a complete deprivation to the petitioner to file his affidavit by way of objection in contravention to the contents of the document relied by the landlord, there would not be a valid cause to be ventured by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.