Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) IN the present case the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20th November, 1991, rejecting application for permission to cross -examine the witnesses have been challenged. An application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the respondent No. 3 for the release of the shop No. 29/32 New Market, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. The tenant -petitioner filed written statement denying the allegations made in the release application. During the pendency of the release application the tenant moved an application for permission to cross examine the applicant -landlord. The grounds taken in the application are that the affidavit of respondent No. 3 is misleading and does not disclose true facts and the true facts can come before the Court only by cross examination of witnesses. It was further stated that in the affidavit it has been alleged that the respondent No. 3 never let out the shop to 'Rama Sari Printers', whereas one Surendra Kumar was the tenant in the shop and was doing business under the name 'Rama Sari Printers'. The correct facts are required to be ascertained which would be possible only by cross -examination. This application in detail was considered by the learned Prescribed Authority, who has come to the conclusion that for none of the reasons stated in the application the cross -examination of respondent No. 3, who had filed the affidavit, would be necessary. Learned Prescribed Authority has given detailed and correct reasons which established that the averments made in the affidavit can be controverted by filing counter affidavit or by such evidence which the parties can file. According to the learned Prescribed Authority this is not a fit case in which the facts can be illusidated only by cross -examination of the witnesses and not otherwise.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued before me that for illusidation of correct facts and to test the veracity or creditability of witnesses it is necessary to cross -examine the witnesses. According to him the right of cross examination should be given as a rule and not as an exception, meaning thereby that cross -examination of witness should be refused only in exceptional cases. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me the decision reported in Ramlal v. Prescribed Authority and others, 1982 (Vol. I) A.R.C. 449, Ashfaq Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority and others : 1987 A.R.C. (Vol. I) 356, Assan Das v. Prescribed Authority, 1981 A.L.J. (NOC) 7, and Abdul Hamid Khan v. Majidul Hasan and others, 1975 A.R.C. 398. Before I deal with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the context of the cases cited above, it can not be disputed that there is no absolute bar to cross -examine the witnesses. The only point of difference is as to whether this power is to be exercised in general manner or only in exceptional cases in which the facts and circumstances of the case require.
(3.) I have carefully seen the reasons given in the impugned order by which the learned Prescribed Authority has refused to exercise this power. In my opinion the learned Prescribed Authority has correctly on the basis of facts and circumstances, of the case and the reasons stated in the application to cross -examine the witnesses, come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to cross -examine respondent No. 3, for the averments made in the affidavit.;