Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arun Gupta vs Of on 17 November, 2025
( 2025:HHC:38521 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 157 of 2024.
Reserved on: 11th November, 2025.
.
Decided on : 17th November, 2025.
Arun Gupta .... Petitioner.
Versus
of
Des Raj Sood ....Respondent.
Coram: rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with 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.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:26 :::CIS2 ( 2025:HHC:38521 )
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.
3. Pleadings were completed and then the petitioner-
of tenant submitted interrogatories to the respondent/landlord as under:- rt "1. What amount of money did you pay as House Tax to 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 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:-
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:26 :::CIS3 ( 2025:HHC:38521 ) "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 deduction.
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 of deduction.
Answer No.2:
rt No rent/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."
5. 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.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:26 :::CIS4 ( 2025:HHC:38521 )
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 counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.
of
9. Order XI Rule 11 of the Code vests the Court with jurisdiction to require a party to answer or answer further rt 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.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:26 :::CIS5 ( 2025:HHC:38521 )
12. The application filed by the petitioner/tenant for submission of interrogatories did not explicitly furnish the context .
and the basis of the interrogatories. Only a vague averment was made that the interrogatories related to matter in controversy and were necessary to decide the same fairly, effectively and also to save the cost. In such background, seeking further clarification of and answers on the interrogatories by the petitioner/tenant does not appear to be bonafide rt
13. While seeking clarification and further answers to the interrogatories, the petitioner/tenant in his application had shown his dissatisfaction to the answers furnished by the respondent/landlord by alleging that the answers so furnished were either not correct or were not in consonance with the evidence allegedly available with the petitioner/tenant. Again, the petitioner/tenant had not made out a clear-cut case for further answers to the interrogatories by satisfying the Court as to the exact context or relevance of the interrogatories.
14. Thus, the discretion used by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the respondent/landlord cannot be faulted ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:26 :::CIS 6 ( 2025:HHC:38521 ) with. On the basis of material on record, if the Court felt itself dissatisfied with the contentions raised by the petitioner/tenant, .
the same need not be interfered with as it does not amount to error in exercise of jurisdiction.
15. In result, there is not merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications also of stand disposed of.
rt (Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
17th November, 2025.
(jai)
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:26 :::CIS