- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 10-11-1995 whereby respondent No. 1 has rejected the application of the petitioners for cross-examination of the landlord-respondent No. 2 and the witnesses who had filed af fidavits in support of his case.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for release of the disputed premises against the petitioners on the allegation that they are tenants. Me requires the ac commodation in question for his residential purpose. He was working as Principal in Government College, Didwana. He has retired from service and is living at Dhaulpur in a rented house. He is aged about 60 years and wants to shift to Fatehabad to live in the premises in question. The petitioner filed written state ment and it was denied that the premises in question is bona fide required by respondent No. 2 for residential purposes. They alleged that they are carrying on business of general merchandise. The landlord remained in Rajasthan Education Service and retired from service on 31st July, 1982 and since then he is living at Dhaulpur. He has further sold one residential three storeyed building of ten rooms which was situate at Chauraha Mohalia, Fatehabad and the property sold by the landlord was in vacant position. He instead of shifting to Fatehabad sold the property. Respondent No. 2 filed affidavit in support of his version and also filed the affidavit of Gopai Prasad Sharma of Dhaulpur. One fchagwan Das Lekhpal and Sri Bhagwan Singh, real brother of respondent No. 2, also filed affidavits. The petitioner filed application dated 10th July, 1995 to summon these persons for the purpose of cross-examination. The Prescribed Authority has rejected this applica tion by the impugned order dated 10-114995. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent No. 1 acted il legally in rejecting the application without considering the merits of the case. Once the affidavit is filed by a party, the other party has a right to cross-examine to test the veracity of the affidavit.
(3.) IN the various decisions of this Court it has been held that cross-examina tion may be permitted only when there are special circumstances existing in the case. It is not whenever a party files an application for cross-examination it should be allowed. Section 34 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides the powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them. Section 34 (1) (a) gives power to the authority concerned for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and clause (b) confers the power of receiving evidence on affidavits. The affidavits which are accepted as evidence have to be in the same manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (6) of Section 34 of the Act provides that affidavits to be filed in any proceeding under this Act shall be made in the same manner and conform to the same requirements as af fidavits filed under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable.;