The Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not a Civil Court and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not fully applicable. The Prescribed Authority has the same powers as a Civil Court only for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of law and procuring the attendance of persons, obtaining evidence on oath, or receiving evidence on affidavits.

N.L. Ganguly, J.

1. THIS writ petition arise out of an order dated 15-5-93 passed by the XII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 22 of 1992 rejecting the application moved by the tenant before the appellate court for rejecting all the evidence adduced by the landlord in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972. The ground for requesting to reject all evidence adduced by the landlord on affidavit, was that the evidence by affidavit is not covered by the definition of the word "evidence" as defined in the Evidence Act.

2. AN application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter- referred as the Act, was filed by the landlord Laxmi Narain Gupta seeking a relief of release of a commercial accommodation namely premises no. 43/234 Meston Road, Kanpur Nagar. A copy of the application for release has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 2 which shows that the landlord opposite party had prayed for release of the shop room for engaging the landlord Narain Prasad Gupta himself and settling his sons namely Nand Kishore and Brij Kishore so that they may jointly do some business in the shop room in question. The landlord had pleaded in his application that he himself is not employed at present. The applicant stated that he is Bania by cast and the family have sufficient experience of the business and are capable of doing business. There is no other alternative or there is no other job except to enter into business and carrying on business. The landlord opposite party had pleaded that he has a big family and the income of the family is very meagre and the two sons were not employed. They wanted to start the business of hotel and restaurant in the shop room in question. The need of the landlord for settling himself and his son in business was genuine, bonafide and hard pressing. The landlord had given in the petition reference to a big house with the tenant-petitioner which was residential and commercial as whole. The petitioner was said to have filed application under Section 21 of the Act in respect of another accommodation at 108/8 P. Road,1 Kanpur and the shop occupied by Hind Trading has been sought to be released by the petitioner in the court below and the proceedings are pending.

The petitioner-tenant filed the written statement and contested the application of the landlord, filed affidavit and other documents controverting the case of the landlord. The application under section 21 of the Act was dismissed by an order dated 9-1-92 by the Prescribed Authority, under the Act, Kanpur Nagar. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the landlord opposite party filed an appeal before the appellate court, Kanpur Nagar under Section 22 of the Ad.

3. THE application for rejecting the evidence of the landlord tendered on affidavit was prayed to be rejected on the ground that the evidence of an affidavit is no evidence according to the definition of evidence in the Evidence Act, being not relevant admissible in evidence on record. THE said application was moved after about 14 months from the date of filling j of the appeal. THE said application for rejecting the evidence on affidavit by the landlord was rejected after hearing the petitioner and the opposite party landlord by the order impugned dated 15-5-1993.

4. THE learned counsel for the petitioner before this court submitted that the evidence on affidavit is no evidence as per the definition of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. It was submitted that the averments on affidavit may be treated as evidence after the court have sufficient reason passes on order under Order 19 rules 1 or 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE learned counsel cited Smt Sudha Devi v. Narayanan, AIR 1988 SC 1381 in support of his submission that the averments on affidavit without an order under O. 9 R. 1 or 2 of CPC is no evidence within the meaning of the definition, Such affidavits could-not be admitted in evidence and are liable to be