Santosh Kumar Phaujdar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant whose application for cross -examination of the landlord, in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, has been refused by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 16.11.1996 in release case No. 91 of 1993 as per annexure -4 to the writ petition. A caveat was filed by the landlord respondents and the learned counsel for the caveater was also heard when the matter was taken up for hearing.
(2.) THE only two points on which the petition was pressed were: - - (i) That the learned Prescribed Authority had not recorded his reasons for dismissing the order although under the law, under Section 34(7) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, he was duty bound to record reasons for his order, and (ii) Cross -examination should not have been denied as the law clearly provided under Section 34 of the said Act that the persons could be called for cross -examination and that was in fact the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure as per Order XIX Rule 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on several decisions to press his points. Reference was made to the case reported in, 1977 Allahabad Rent Cases at page 58. It was a case concerning the cross -examination of an expert. It was observed that although the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority were not judicial proceeding it was essential that the rules of natural justice be meticulously observed in such proceedings also. It was further observed that it was a settled principle of administration of justice that if any evidence or material is relied upon to the detriment of a party that party must have a fair opportunity of meeting that evidence or material and of rebutting the same. It was further observed that the testimony of expert shall not be treated as gospel truth and it would be perilous to let the prescribed authority rely implicitly on the mere report of the expert without even an affidavit from the person and deny to the party adversely affected an opportunity of cross -examination.
(3.) IN the case reported in, 1987 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases at page 356, the court was again confronted with an application for cross -examination of deponent of an affidavit. It was observed that it was within the power of the prescribed authority to refuse the prayer but before the refusal of the prayer, the Prescribed Authority was required to examine the matter from the correct angle.;