2009 (11) TMI 1023 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Application for cross-examination rejected u/s Code of Civil Procedure and U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

Cross-examination Application Rejection:
The writ petition sought to quash orders rejecting the tenant's application for cross-examining the landlady and her son. Petitioner argued for cross-examination rights u/s Section 34 of the Act and Rule 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, citing a judgment in Rang Lal v. Prescribed Authority. The Respondents relied on a judgment in Ram Chandra Sharma v. Additional District Judge to contest the application's rejection.

Maintainability of Writ Petition:
Respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as it challenged an interlocutory order. They suggested that final orders could be challenged in appeal or revision, referencing a Division Bench judgment in Khushi Ram Dedwal v. Additional Judge.

Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure:
The Respondents argued that the Code of Civil Procedure's applicability in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act was limited by Section 38 of Rent Control Act No. XIII of 1972, which had an overriding effect on procedural laws.

Judicial Decision:
The Court held that the rejection of the cross-examination application was justified. It stated that the Petitioner could rebut the affidavit's contents with a rebuttal affidavit and relevant documents, without the need for cross-examination. The Court emphasized the expeditious disposal of cases under Section 21(1) of the Act and dismissed the writ petition, noting no grounds for interference.