Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.10.1996 whereby the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 3, has allowed the application of the contesting respondent to cross -examine the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) for release of the disputed accommodation. The application is alleged to have been filed for release on the ground that he would carry on business and reside in the disputed accommodation. He filed an affidavit dated 15.9.1995 in support of his application and got filed affidavits of Ayodhya Prasad and Gauri Shankar in support of his case.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed counter -affidavit in the case and Sri Om Prakash Dalmiya filed rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 moved an application (paper No. 35 -C -2) for producing the petitioner for cross -examination. The petitioner filed an objection. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 13.8.1996 on the ground that the petitioner was being summoned to cross -examine to find out as to whether he is suffering from cancer. The Prescribed Authority took the view that as the petitioner was suffering from cancer, he could not be directed to appear for cross -examination. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 again filed an application on 10.9.1996 to cross -examine the petitioner on the ground that the affidavit dated 15.9.1995 filed by the petitioner was fictitious and in fact it was not sworn by the petitioner. The petitioner filed objection to this application. This application was allowed on 5.10.1996 by the Prescribed Authority. He found that the affidavit dated 15.9.1995 filed by the petitioner creates doubt as to whether in fact he has sworn the affidavit and considering this aspect of the matter he has summoned the petitioner. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. Earlier the petitioner filed writ petition against this very order and the same was dismissed by this Court on 19th March, 1997, on the ground that the writ petition was filed through power of attorney but no copy of power of attorney was produced. The petitioner has how filed the present writ petition annexing the copy of power of attorney.
(3.) SRI B.N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that once the application for cross -examination has been rejected, the Prescribed Authority has no jurisdiction to pass another order summoning the petitioner for cross -examination as the order passed earlier amounts to res -judicata. He has placed reliance upon the decision Satyadhan Ghosal and others v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another : AIR 1960 Alld. 941, wherein it has been held that the principle of res -judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a Court, whether the trial Court or a higher Court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re -agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. In Kripal Singh v. Additional District Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut and others : 1997 (29) AIR 646, the Court held that once the application for cross -examination is dismissed the same order becomes final and subsequent application for the same relief will be barred by principle of res -judicata, even if filed on different grounds in same set of circumstances. In Hari Shankar v. Ram Autar and others, 1996 (1) ARC 322, it was held that a party can prove the material fact on the basis of the affidavit or other documentary evidence. In S. Surjit Singh v. Prescribed Authority/Second Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar and another : 1995 (26) ALR 385, the Court rejected the application for cross -examination on the ground that it was filed at the final stage of hearing of the case.;