- (1.) Heard Sri Pritish Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Kumar as well as Sri Bireshwar Nath, on behalf of opposite parties. Facts in brief of the present case are that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 registered as P.A. Case No. 10 of 2005 before Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) court No. 14 Rae Bareilly. On 29.3.2010 Smt. Katoon Begum had filed her own affidavit, (registered as paper No, Ga 107). Petitioner who is the tenant was not satisfied with the contents of the said application/affidavit, moved an application on 19.8.2010 for cross-examination of Smt. Khatoon Begum/O.P. No. 2 objections were filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 on 25.8.2010. O.P. No. 1 rejected the same by order dated 23.11.2010. Hence, the present petition has been filed before this Court.
(2.) Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order dated 23.11.2010 submits that the same is totally illegal, arbitrary in nature in the matter as due to contradictory in affidavits filed by the respondents, it is necessary to cross-examine the O.P. No. 2, whether she is landlady or not. In support of his argument he rely on the judgments namely: (1) Khushi Ram Dedwal v. Additional Judge, Small Causes Court/Prescribed Authority, Meerut and others, 1997 2 ARC 674. (2) Mahesh Chand v. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Bulandshahr/Prescribed Authority and another,2005 59 LR 17.
(3.) Sri Bireshwar Nath who has put appearance on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand supported the order under challenge and submits that the application moved on behalf of petitioner/tenant for cross-examination of O.P. No. 2 is wholly misconceived and rather the same has been only In order to linger the matter. He further submits that on the basis of affidavits which are on record it is clearly established that O.P. No. 2 is the landlady of the shop in question. In support of his argument he relied on the judgment passed in the case of Jaya Kalia (Smt.) v. Smt. Manju Agarwal and another, 2009 3 ARC 799.;