Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ram Kaushal Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority whereby the application moved by the respondents under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question has been allowed on the ground that the respondents need the premises for bona fide requirement and that the occupation of the premises in question by the petitioners is likely to cause hardships to the respondents-landlords. The petitioners have also challenged the judgement and order dated 13.3.2015 passed by the appellate Court in Rent Appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily emphasized that learned Prescribed Authority while rejecting the application moved by the petitioners for cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs has erred in law. He has also stated that while rejecting the application seeking permission to cross-examine the witnesses, the learned Prescribed Authority has not assigned any plausible reason therefor. His further submission is that a specific ground was taken by the petitioners by filing appeal before the appellate Court against the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority that learned Prescribed Authority has wrongly rejected the application seeking opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but learned appellate Court has also not considered the said prayer in its correct legal perspective. In this regard, he has submitted that application made by the petitioners before the appellate Court was rejected on 22.11.2014 with the observation that the issue will be considered by the appellate Court at the time of final hearing of the matter, however while rendering the final judgement, the appellate Court has not considered the said prayer and has also not taken into account the ground raised by the petitioners related thereto by observing that the application made by the petitioners stood rejected earlier and as such there is no justification in considering the said application.

4. Apart from the aforesaid ground of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that in fact the findings of fact recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority which has been affirmed by the appellate Court in respect of bona fide need and comparative hardships is also against the evidence available on record.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference by this Court is warranted in the judgement rendered by the Prescribed Authority which has been affirmed by the appellate Court. He has also stated that in absence of any provisions under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 permitting cross-examination of the witnesses, there is no illegality which can be said to have been committed by the Prescribed Authority in denying the said opportunity to the petitioners.

6. Taking up the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I may only refer to the contents of the application made by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority. The said application is on record. According to the said application, it was submitted by the petitioners before the prescribed authority that under the changed circumstances, the respondents have put wrong facts in respect of shop which is adjoining the premises in question and was earlier in the occupation of another tenant Ram Raj Prajapati. It was further stated in the said application that earlier the learned prescribed authority had rejected the application for issu