Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri N.L. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Singh learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.7.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Revision No. 182/07/2013 (Omkar Nath Agnihotri v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta) and order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the 1st Upper Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Suit No. 1 of 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Omkar Nath Agnihotri). Vide order dated 9.7.2013, the petitioner’s application under Order XI, Rule 12 and 14of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) read with Rule 23 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (in short, ‘the Rules’) has been rejected, whereas by the subsequent order dated 26.7.2013, the revision challenging the order dated 9.7.2013 has been dismissed as not maintainable.

3. It appears, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for releasing the house No. 49/56 and 1st and 2nd floors of house No. 149/50-C situated at General Gunj, Nayagarh, Kanpur Nagar under the tenancy of the petitioner (the tenant). The respondent-landlord also filed his written statement. After closure of the evidence of the landlord, the petitioner (tenant) filed the aforesaid application stating therein that apart from the house in dispute, the respondent has eight other houses in the city, i.e., house No. 2/169 Nabawganj, Kanpur Nagar; house No. 1/34 Nabawganj, Kanpur Nagar; house No. 2/99 Nabawganj, Kanpur Nagar; house Nos. 1/273 Nabawganj, Kanpur Nagar; house No. 67/5 Harvansh Mohal, Kanpur Nagar; house No. 13/280 Parmit, Kanpur Nagar, house No. 13/280-A Parmit, Kanpur Nagar and house No. 61/213, Canal Road, Kanpur Nagar, therefore, the landlord be directed to file the papers showing ownership and possession over the above houses before the Court.

4. Learned Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioner’s application by the impugned order dated 9.7.2013 on the ground that this application was filed at the belated stage when the date was fixed for evidence of the petitioner (tenant). Further, the petitioner (tenant) could state the details of these houses by way of filing an affidavit before the Court. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed revision, which had been dismissed as not maintainable as the same was filed against an interlocutory order.

5. While assailing this order, Sri Agarwal contends that the Courts below have erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application. In his submissions, it was incumbent upon the prescribed authority to direct the landlord to file the papers relating to the ownership and possession over the houses mentioned in application No. 47/1. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Chaturbhuj Sarma Sikshan Sansthan Mahavidyalaya Samit v. Awadh Bihari Tiwari, Laws (All) 2006 (3) 99.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition.

7. For appreciating the controversy, it would be useful to go through the provisions contained in Order XI, Rule 12 of the CPC as well as Rule 23 of the Rules, which are reproduced hereinunder:

“Order XI, Rule 12 of the CPC.

12. Application for discovery of documents: Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents,