- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners challenging the validity of the order dated 26-5-2000 whereby applica tion filed by the petitioner to call the ex pert whose report has been filed by the respondent No. 2 in support of his case or cross-examination has been rejected by the respondent No. 1.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, seeking release of the shop in dispute which was in occupation of the petitioners. Petitioners on receipt of the notice from the Court of the Prescribed Authority, filed their written statement denying the claim of respondent No. 2 and asserting that his need for the shop in dispute was neither genuine nor bona fide. Plea of comparatively more hardship was also taken. In support of their cases, par ties produced evidence, oral and documentary, including reports of experts. It was claimed that there were con flicting reports of experts, therefore, the cross-examination of the expert, who filed the report and affidavit in support of the said report, was necessary. The respondent No. 1 after hearing parties and examining the material on record, came to the con clusion that it was not necessary, under the facts and circumstances of the case, to call the expert whose report and affidavit have been filed by the respondent No. 2 for cross-examination. It has been observed that on the basis of the material on record, the case could be decided without any dif ficulty. It is not doubt correct 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 any 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 atten dance of any person and examining him on oath but the same power is discretionary. The Prescribed Authority, as stated above, clearly held that under the facts and cir cumstances of the present case, it was not necessary to call the expert whose report has been filed by the respondent No. 2, for cross-examination. The Prescribed, Authority, in my opinion, did not commit any error or law and jurisdiction in dis missing the application. No case for inter ference under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is dis missed in limine. Petition dismissed. .;