IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2009 Pankaj Kumar Garg, S/o Late Sri Radhe Shyam Garg, R/o Sangam Shoes Shop, Main Bazar, Mohalla Mehtan, Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar, Presently resides at Mohalla Malyan, Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar ……………Petitioner Versus Harish Kumar, S/o Late Sri Madan Lal, R/o Mohalla Lakkarharan, Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar ………… Respondent Sri Jagdish Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 02.05.2009, passed by Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar), in P.A. Case No. 02 of 2008; Harish Kumar Vs. Pankaj Kumar Garg. A further direction has been sought to allow the application moved by 2 the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority under Section 34 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, read with Rule 22 of Rules framed thereunder. (2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (3) It appears that respondent-Harish Kumar has moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act i.e. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act. No. XIII of 1972), for release of accommodation in which the petitioner is the tenant. From the papers on record it is clear that the respondent / landlord has filed his evidence in the form of affidavit as provided under the aforesaid Act. It appears that when the case was fixed for evidence of the tenant (present petitioner), he filed an application 24C2, seeking permission to cross-examine the landlord. The trial court has rejected said application holding that there is no ambiguity in the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of landlord and with further observation that the tenant (present petitioner) is allowed to file his evidence in the 3 form of affidavit with the documentary evidence, if any, in support of his pleadings. (4) The object of U.P. Act. No. XIII of 1972 is to decide the proceedings between landlord and tenant speedily. That is why the Act provides a special procedure for deciding applications moved under the said Act. It provides filing of evidence in the form of affidavits. Cross-examination of the witnesses under the Act cannot be asked as of right. After hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority has rejected the application 24C2 on the ground that there is no ambiguity which requires cross-examination of the landlord or his witnesses. While rejecting the application 24C2, the Prescribed Authority has further observed that it is open for the tenant (who is opposite party before the Prescribed Authority) to file documentary evidence and other evidence in addition to the affidavits to be filed to show that the averments made by the landlord are wrong. (5) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order and other papers on record, this Court does not find any 4 error of law committed by the Prescribed Authority. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.05.2009, passed by the Prescribed Authority, whereby application 24C2 is rejected in P.A. Case No. 02 of 2008. (6) The writ petition stands dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 7036/2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 18.08.2009 NS