In summary proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, cross-examination cannot be claimed as a matter of course. The Act does not mandate oral evidence and allows parties to prove their case through affidavits. Cross-examination may be permitted only when necessary for proper adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The proceedings under the Act No. 13 of 1972, are governed by the provisions contained under section 34 of the Act, to be read with Rule 22, as it has been framed under the Act. By virtue of the provisions contained under section 34 of the Act, only part of the procedural aspect of the CPC has been made applicable over the proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972, and it does not include within it, the aspect of permitting the cross-examination of the witnesses in the summary proceedings of the Act No. 13 of 1972, and that too of the proceedings which are being held under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, which in accordance with the Rule 15 (3), has had to be decided as a summary proceedings within the specified time frame therein. In the summary proceedings, an elaborate trial is not expected, nor is statutorily required to be conducted.

2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent/landlord, is an applicant to the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, against which, an objection was filed by the petitioner/tenant. Thereafter, it is contended by the tenant/petitioner that the landlord has submitted the list of documents, which was inclusive of the rent agreement of 02.07.2022, which necessitated for the present petitioner to file an application paper no. 76Ka, for seeking permission, to cross-examine the respondent no. 2, before the learned Prescribed Authority. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 15.07.2022.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention; qua the finding which has been recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority while rejecting the application paper no. 76Ka, whereby declining him an opportunity of cross-examination, to the present petitioner, the court has observed that the documents, which has been filed by the landlord on 02.07.2022, the entire burden to prove the same to make it acceptable to be read in evidence is to be discharged by the landlord himself, when the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority itself is carried, and for that purposes, if at all the tenant wants to controvert any of the documents, to be contrary to facts, it will be open for him to file an appropriate affidavit in accordance with the provisions contained under section 34 of the Act, for which an elaborate cross examination is not required.

4. The observations, which has been made thereof in the impugned order, is not a complete closure of opportunity of the applicant/tenant from controverting the contents of the documents filed by the landlord on 02.07.2022, but rather the burden to prove its contents, has been shifted upon the landlord, and if at all, any contravention to its contents was to be made by the petitioner/tenant, it was left open for him to be done by way of filing of an affidavit, which is permissible under section 34 of Act No. 13 of 1972.

5. In the rent control proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, since cross-examination, being not a procedural aspect attracted and made applicable under section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the same cannot be adopted to or claimed as a matter of course. However, by qualifying his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment reported in Ashfaq Ahmad vs. Prescribed Authority and Another, 1987 All. L.J. 1452 and particularly, he has made a reference to the contents of paragraph 12 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

“12. To my mind the Prescribed Authority has not approached the problem from correct angle, therefore, the legal position has been made clear and it is expected that the Prescribed Authority would afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses whose affidavits have been filed in support of the claim of the opposite party No. 2 regarding oral gift, if the petitioner again applied in this behalf.”

6. In fact, if the observations which were made in paragraph 12 is read with the preceding paragr