The necessity for cross-examination in a release application under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and cross-examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Petitioner is tenant in respect of a building situate at Jwalapur, District Haridwar. Respondents sought release of the said building under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'Act No. 13 of 1972'), by moving an application before Prescribed Authority.

2. Petitioner filed objection/written statement to the release application. He also filed an application under Section 34(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, seeking permission to cross-examine the landlords and their witnesses. In the said application, petitioner contended that the landlords have suppressed the information about their immovable property and also one clinic owned by respondent no. 1, at Lucknow. It was further contended that since the building in question is very old, therefore, substantial amount of money would be needed for its re-construction, however, the funds available with the landlords have not been disclosed, therefore, truth can only come out when he is permitted to cross-examine landlords and their witnesses. Prescribed Authority rejected the said application by holding that the issue of availability of funds for re-construction of building is wholly irrelevant and tenant can rebut the statement of landlord and their witnesses by filing reply affidavit. Feeling aggrieved by order passed by Prescribed Authority on 01.07.2022, petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the tenant is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses so as to bring out the truth, which cannot be countered through reply affidavit. He further submits that learned Prescribed Authority erred in rejecting petitioner's application for cross-examination, without considering the grounds made therefor. Section 34 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is reproduced below:-

'34. Powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them.-(1) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any 75[appellate or revising authority] shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing 75[any appeal or revision] under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely,-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(c) inspecting a building or its locality, or issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents or local investigation;

(d) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(e) awarding, subject to any rules made in that behalf, costs or special costs to any parts or requiring security for costs from any party;

(f) recording a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction and making an order in accordance therewith;

(g) any other matter which may be prescribed.

(2) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or [appellate or revising authority], while holding an inquiry or hearing [any appeal or revision] under this Act, shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of 77[Sections 345 and 346 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] and any proceeding before him or it to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. XLV of 1860).

(3) Where any costs or other sum of money awarded under this Act by the District Magistrate or the prescribed authority or 76[the appellate or revisional authority] remains unpaid, he or it may issue a certificate of recovery in respect thereof in the prescribed form, and any person in whose favour such certificate is issued may apply to the Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. IX of 1887) for recovery of the amount specified in the certificate. Such court shall thereupon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if