WPMS 2729/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and Sri Gopal K. Verma, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the application of the tenant for production of the documents did not relate to the release application with regard to the bonafide need of the landlord. The application was patently misconceived and most probably was moved to delay the hearing of the proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 27-12-2011 SP