IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 546 of 2011 M/s Lal Chand Shyam Kumar and another. … Petitioners. Versus Wasim Ahmed and another. … Respondents. Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Date March 26, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 2286 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8- 2-2011 (Annexure-4 to the petition) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Roorkee/Prescribed Authority (for short Prescribed Authority) in P.A. Case No. 5 of 2010 and direct the respondents to answer the interrogatories while allowing application paper no. 21B. The respondents filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 claiming themselves to be the owner and the petitioners as tenant over the property in question and sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bona fide need. The application was registered as P.A. Case No. 5 of 2010 before the Prescribed Authority. In that case, the petitioners moved an application paper no. 21-B under Section 34 of the Act read with rule 22 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in the form of interrogatories. It appears that the respondents filed objection and resisted the application. The learned Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties by the impugned order has dismissed the 2 application paper no. 21-B of the petitioners, which gave rise to the present writ petition. The petitioners have annexed copy of the application as Annexure-2 to the petition. I have perused the application filed by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority. From a bare perusal of this application, it is evident that in this application the petitioners have asked questions pertaining to the movable and immovable property of the applicant- respondent Wasim Ahmad and its details as well as the source of income, whether the applicant pays income tax, the sale consideration of the property in dispute and amount of stamp duty paid by him thereon. The amounts incurred by applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 in acquiring the said property and some other questions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the questions sought to be answered in the interrogatories were relevant question but the learned Prescribed Authority has rejected the application without any basis. It may be pointed out here that the application has been moved by the respondents herein for release of the shop in question on the ground of bona fide. I have perused the order dated8-2-2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority. In my view the learned Prescribed Authority has rightly rejected the application paper no. 21B moved by the petitioners as the questions mentioned in the interrogatories have no nexus with the defence of the petitioners. The points to be considered for disposal of the application for release moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act are the bona fide need of the applicant 3 and comparative hardship of the parties. The Prescribed Authority was fully justified in observation that the questions furnished in the interrogatories were irrelevant and without any foundation. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. Stay application also stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP