Cross-examination of a witness is permissible in rent control matters and can be permitted in appropriate cases where the court considers it necessary.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur in Rent Appeal No.3 of 2016 arising out of a release application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, filed by the petitioner.

3. By this order, application no.19-ga filed by the appellant-respondent (the tenant) for opportunity to cross examine a witness, Safik has been allowed. It appears that Safik has been produced as witness by the petitioner landlord.

4. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there exists no provision of law, where under the Court concerned would have permitted cross-examination of a witness produced at the instance of the petitioner especially in proceedings under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No.13, where from the instant writ petition arises.

5. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court dated 14.07.2016 passed in a matter under Article 227 No.4660 of 2016, M/s Bitufelt Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta.

6. The other submission made is that the application for permission to cross-examination was malafide and filed only with object to delay in disposal of the appeal itself.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record as also the judgment cited.

8. I do not find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no cross-examination of a witness is permissible in proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

9. Even in the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner, this Court has held that evidence in Rent Control matters is permitted to be recorded on the basis of affidavits and it is not necessary to get the witness examined or cross-examined. It has however held that in rare cases, cross-examination can be permitted, where the Court considers it necessary.

10. The question as to whether cross-examination is required or not is to be determined on the basis of the facts of the case and the existing circumstances. It is therefore, clear that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cross-examination is permissible in Rent Control matters is unfounded.

11. The Courts dealing with Rent Control matters can, definitely, in appropriate cases, permit cross-examine of a witness of the parties.

12. The only other submission made is that the application for cross-examination was filed to delay the disposal of the appeal itself.

13. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that while allowing the application filed by the respondents, the Court concerned had directed that Safik, the person to be cross-examined appear on the next date. The petitioner instead of producing his witness for cross-examination choose to seek adjournment for enabling him to challenge the order.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, appropriate directions can be issued to ensure that the matter does not linger on the basis of the order impugned.

15. The witness sought to be cross-examined is the petitioner's own witness. He can always ensure that his witness is produced for cross-examination. Interest of justice would satisfied, in case directions are issued that once the said Safik is produced for cross-examination, he must necessarily be cross-examined by the respondents and that no adjournment for this purpose be granted.

16. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed but subject to the observations that have been made herein above.