R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by rejection of its application under Order XIX Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code for cross-examining opposite party, the landlady, for demonstrating that the application filed for release under section 21 (1) (a) of Act XIII of 1972 was not bonafide the tenant has come to this Court.
(2.) IT appears petitioner was inducted as tenant in 1976. In 1978 it was asked to enter into fresh agreement. In 1979 it was asked to enhance the rent. But it did not agree. In 1980 negotiations for sale started but they did not materialise. In 1981 application for release was filed. Petitioner claimed it was not bonafide. IT also moved the application for cross-examination as affidavit filed in support of application contained incorrect facts. IT was rejected as it failed to disclose the incorrect facts which needed to be established by cross-examination. Copy of the application has been filed with writ petition. IT leaves no room for doubt that on the facts stated in the application it could not have been allowed. In writ petition it has been stated that application for cross examination was filed as the correspondence exchanged between parties for sale of house was filed which was initially neither admitted nor denied, but later on after order of Prescribed Authority the landlady denied it. Therefore, petitioner was left with no option except to establish its authenticity by cross-examining her. It cannot be accepted because this was never the case before Prescribed Authority. Moreover dispute under U. P. Act XIII of 1972 has to be decided primarily on affidavits. It does not mean that the Court or authority cannot in a proper case direct cross-examination. But that discretionary power has to be exercised sparingly. In any case the Prescribed Authority does not appear to have committed any error in rejecting the application. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;