WPMS No.35 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the tenant against whom the proceedings for release of the premises in question was instituted by the opposite party on the ground of personal need. The petitioner is a tenant of the ground floor of the premises in question. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for interrogatories under Section 34 read with Rule 22 & 23 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 praying that the landlord be directed to give various information as prayed in the application. This application was rejected by the trial court against which the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the court finds that as many as 18 interrogatories were asked from the landlord. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is confining his submission to only four interrogatories, namely, interrogatory Nos.6, 8, 14 & 16. In interrogatory Nos.6 & 8, the petitioner has asked the information as to how the landlord has sought eviction of the tenant from the premises in question. In interrogatory No.14, the petitioner has asked the information as to how the landlord had acquired the property at 29, Civil Lines, Roorkee and in interrogatory No.16, the petitioner has asked about the income of the landlord’s son. In my opinion, the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are required be decided on affidavits and, in rare cases, resort can be taken to elicit certain information by invoking the provision of Section 34 of the Act and Rule 22 & 23 of the Rules with regard to filing interrogatories. In the present case, the court finds that the interrogatories sought has no bearing with the issue involved and it has no concern as to how many properties the landlord has and that the information sought as to how and why and when and in what manner, the property have been released by the landlord has no bearing with the issue involved in the present case. In the opinion of the court, the interrogatories sought were patently erroneous. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 06.01.2011 LSR