IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 157 of 2024.

Reserved on: 11 ^th November, 2025. Decided on : 17 ^th November, 2025.

Arun Gupta .... Petitioner.

Versus Des Raj Sood ....Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with h Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Diwan Singh Negi and Mr.

Rajender Singh, Advocates.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

By way of instant petition, the petitioner/tenant has taken exception to order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller-II, Shimla in CMA No. 533 of 2024 in Rent Case No.

225 of 2019.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The respondent/landlord has filed a petition, for eviction of petitioner/tenant from a non-residential premises under, Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 on grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement for establishing the clinic of his son. f

3. Pleadings were completed and then the petitioner- tenant submitted interrogatories to the respondent/landlord as under:- u “1. What amount of money did you pay as House Tax Cto the Municipal Corporation, Shimla regarding the premises in question i.e. One Shop situated in the Top Floor of the building identified as 118, Lower Bazar, Shimla-1 for the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

2. What is the amount of House Tax charged from i the respondent regarding the premises in question i.e.

one shop situated on the Top Floor of the building identified as 118, Lower Bazar, Shimla-1 for the years

2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

3. Has not the respondent paid rent upto March, 2018 as mentioned in the Rent Note dated 15.05.2017 executed in favour of Sh. Arun Gupta.”

4. In response, the respondent/landlord answered the interrogatories in following terms:-

“Answer No.1 The following amount of house tax has been paid.

during the period as follows:-

i) Financial year 2018-19 Rs.893/- after de.duction.

ii) Financial year 2019-20 Rs.893/- after deduction. iii) Financial year 2020-21 Rs. 960/- after deduction.

iv) Financial year 2021-22 Rs.982/- after deduction.

Answer No.2:

No reunt/house tax has been charged from the respondent since the time when both the parties are in litigations as the petitioner has filed eviction petition on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. Answer No.3 No rent has been paid upto March, 2018 by the respondent to the petitioner.”

H5. Thereafter, the petitioner/tenant filed an application under Order XI Rule 11 of the Code seeking direction against the respondent/landlord to answer further the interrogatories on affidavit or by viva voce examination. Such a prayer was made on the premises that the interrogatories submitted to the respondent/landlord had not been sufficiently answered.

6. Application of the petitioner/tenant was contested.

7. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 19.10.2024 has rejected the prayer for direction to the respondent/landlord to furnish further answers to the interrogatories, hence this petition.

8. I have heard learned counsefl for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

9. Order XI Rule 11 of the Code vests the Court with jurisdiction to requuire a party to answer or answer further interrogatories, where the person omits to answer or answers insufficiently the interrogatories issued to him.

10. Learned Rent Controller has rejected the prayer for further clarification by holding that the interrogatories cannot be said to have been insufficiently answered by the landlord. It has further been observed that in case the tenant had any evidence contrary to the answers furnished by the landlord, he had the right to produce the same in evidence.

11. The petitioner/ tenant has not been able to make out any ground for interference in the impugned order.

12. The application filed by the petitioner/tenant for submission of interrogatories did not explicitly furnish the conte