The court emphasized the relevance of timely and relevant procedures in the eviction proceedings, and the discretion of the Rent Controller in declining the request for serving interrogatories.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Rent Controller at Hisar, whereby, an application filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant as regards serving of interrogatories upon the respondents-landlord stands rejected.

2. Briefly stating, the respondents-landlord filed an eviction petition qua the demised shop bearing SCF No.91-1B Scheme No.1, Ground floor, Rajguru Market, Hisar, District Hisar against petitioner-tenant on the ground of bona fide necessity while alleging that the respondents were owners of the premises in question by virtue of sale deed dated 23.01.2015 got executed from its previous owner-Suresh Kumar.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared and contested the eviction petition while submitting that the sale deed dated 23.01.2015 on the basis of which the respondents-landlord were claiming themselves to be the owners of the property in question was in fact a sham transaction, based on collusion between the respondents-landlord as well as their predecessor-ininterest, namely, Suresh Kumar and the same was executed merely for the purpose of seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises.

4. Issues in the present eviction petition were framed on 05.04.2017; Respondent No.2-landlord Kulbir Singh appeared as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A on 04.05.2017. In the meantime, an application seeking amendment of written statement to the eviction petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant and cross-examination of PW-1 remained deferred.

5. On 17.08.2019 while the proceedings were fixed for cross-examination of PW-1, petitioner-tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking leave to deliver interrogatories for examination of respondents-landlord. The relevant extract from the said application is reproduced hereunder:-

“Interrogatories on behalf of above mentioned respondent (applicant) for the examination of petitioners are as under:-

(i) Whether the sale consideration was given in cash or through cheque?

(ii) From which bank money was withdrawn for payment to Suresh Kumar.

(iii) Give the details of account number and name of bank from where the money was withdrawn.

(iv) When the deal qua sale and purchase of shop in question was entered and who was the property dealer/broker who got the deal settled.

(v) When the agreement to purchase this property was scribed, how much amount of earnest money was paid under the agreement and who were the attesting witnesses of the said agreement.

(vi) Who purchased the stamp paper for getting the sale deed of this shop in question prepared and from whose account the payment for purchase of stamp paper was withdrawn. Kindly provide the detail of the bank account and bank name.

(vii) What was the reason of mentioning qua delivery of possession of vacant shop to the purchaser in the sale deed when the possession of the shop in question was already with the respondent tenant.

(viii) When the permission to transfer the shop in question was obtained and when the names of alleged purchasers/petitioners were got incorporated in the records of Hisar Improvement Trust, Hisar.

(xi) Why this shop has not been transferred by the petitioners in their names in the Property Tax Records of Municipal Corporation, Hisar.

(x) The detail of receipt number and date of deposit of property tax or the mode of payment of the same to Municipal Corporation, Hisar qua the shop in question by the petitioner.

Both the petitioners are required to answer the interrogatories.”

6. The aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner-tenant was opposed at the instance of respondents-landlord having filed reply to the same.

7. The Rent Controller vide its order dated 31.03.2022, dismissed the application filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant. Impugning the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the wake of specific plea having been raised at the instance of petiti