WPMS No.1277 of 2004 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashist, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the State. No one appears for the opposite party no.2. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of the premises on the ground that he wanted to open a clinic upon his retirement from the medical profession. The petitioner resisted the release application denying that the opposite party is the owner and landlord and that he was a medical practitioner requiring the premises in question for running his clinic. During the pendency of the release application, the petitioner filed an application to cross-examine the landlord on the ground that the respondent was not the owner or landlord and was not a registered medical practitioner. The said application was rejected by the prescribed authority, by an order dated 04.11.2004, against which the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a right to crossexamine the respondent in the light of the provision under Section 34 of the Act and, such examination would reveal that the respondent was neither the owner or the landlord nor a registered medical practitioner and, consequently, such evidence would reveal that the opposite party had no bonafide need. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated for the simple reason that the release application under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are summary proceedings to be decided on affidavits and cannot be treated as a regular suit, which has been filed on the regular side. Cross-examination can only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where some information is required to be obtained. In the present case, the ground on which the petitioner chose to cross-examine the landlord opposite party can be dealt with by evidence to be brought on record. In the light of the aforesaid, the court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial court within ten days from today. The prescribed authority is directed to initiate proceedings afresh and decide the matter at the earliest. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 22.12.2011 LSR