Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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

3 ( 2025:HHC:38521 ) "Answer No.1 The following amount of house tax has been paid during the period as follows:-

.

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.

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.

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.