IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 225 of 2010 (M/S) Sanjay Kapoor ………..Petitioner Versus Smt. Varsha Chaddha & another …….Respondents Shri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Dated: 23 March, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard Shri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.02.2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar by which 90-C application of the petitioner for summoning landlady for the purpose of cross-examination, under Section 34 of U.P. Act. 13 of 1972 (hearingafter referred to as the ‘Act’), was rejected. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Court below erred in rejecting the application for cross examination of the landlady which was necessary for getting just decision in the case. I have perused the application of the petitioner filed before the prescribed authority under the ‘Act’. In 2 this application the petitioner has mentioned 6 points on which he wanted to cross-examine the landlady, which are as follows:- 1. Whether the applicant is sole owner of the house? 2. Whether the applicant can file copy of family settlement in the suit proceedings? 3. Whether applicant has only two rooms for living? 4. Whether applicant has given complete description of her property? 5. Whether husband of the applicant late Pawan Chaddha had instituted suit no.2/91- Madan Kumar Chaddha Vs State in the Court of R.C. & EO/City Magistrate Haridwar u/s 16 B in which his brothers Satish Kumar Chaddha, Ashok Kumar Chaddha and Kamal Kumar Chaddha were made party? 6. Who is owner of Chaddha Gift Emporium situated at Raj Bhawan? Points shown in the application are not at all so relevant for which the cross examination is necessary. In Rent Control proceedings it is always open for the landlord as well as for the tenant to file their affidavits as well as affidavits of other persons. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that in application no.90-C same points have been mentioned which were mentioned in earlier application no.30-C and landlady has already been cross examined on all the points. In my view, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar is directed to decide P.A. Case no.8 of 2005 expeditiously. The stay application stands dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 23.03.2010