Pankaj Mithal, J. –

Heard Sri. Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Abu Bakht, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the owner of the premises in dispute. The respondent applied under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the premises. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner preferred an appeal. In appeal interlocutory orders have been passed on 31.3.2016 and 30.5.2016 which have been impugned in this petition.

3. The submission of Sri. Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent during the pendency of appeal filed volumeness documents on affidavit and the same was directed to be taken on record. He again filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for bringing on record certain documents and the same has been allowed but at the same time his application to cross examine the respondent who had filed the affidavit so as the bring the documents on record has been rejected.

4. His further submission is that as the affidavit filed by the respondent was in the nature of additi