- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioners and Mr. Salil Kumar Rai, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 2.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 14-7-2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for summoning the deponent of the affidavit for cross-examination, has been rejected by respondent No. 1. It appears that the 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') was filed by respondent No. 2. In the said proceedings, affidavit were filed by the parties in sup port of their cases. The petitioners made an application before the Prescribed Authority for summoning the deponent of one of the affidavits filed by respondent No. 2 with a view, according to him, to ascertain the correct facts. The said ap plication was objected to by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that it was not necessary, under the facts and circumstances of the case, to call respon dent No. 2 for cross-examination and rejected the application by its judgment and order dated 14-7-2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that, under the" facts and circumstances of the present case, it was necessary to summon the respondent No. 2 for cross-examination to ascertain the correct facts as he has filed contradictory and conflicting affidavits.
(3.) EVEN assuming that the facts stated by the petitioners are correct, it was a matter for argument before the authority below. In case the affidavit were conflict ing, it could be pointed out to the Prescribed Authority that the affidavits were not reliable and should not be taken into consideration. Normally, the evidence in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act is taken on affidavits. Affidavits have already been filed. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Further, the Prescribed Authority held that the ap plication filed by the petitioners was not a bona fide application. It was filed with a view to linger on the proceedings and delay the disposal of the case. In view of these facts, no case for interference under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.;