JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9-11-1993 passed by respondent no. I rejecting the application to serve interrogatories on respondent no. 2 to submit reply to those interrogatories. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is tenant of a portion of permises No. 16/18, Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad and is carrying on business of sale of bicycles in the name and style of 'Triveni Cycle Company'. The landlady, respondent no. 2, filed application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner on the allegation that she was carrying on business in the name and style of 'Roxy Hotel' in the first and second floors of the building in dispute. The aforesaid portion has fallen to the share of other co-sharers under the family settlement and they had applied for the release of the aforesaid portion. During the pendency of the proceedings, the co-sharers, Rajendra Kumar and Kamal Kumar, filed Case No 139 of 1982 for release of the portion in possession of respondent no. 2. The said application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 30-3-1984. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority on 22-5-1985. Respondent no. 2 filed writ petition in the High Court and the case was remanded but after remand the appeal was again dismissed on 18th September, 1985 and thereafter Rajendra Kumar and Kamal Kumar had taken possession of two rooms and verandah situate on the first floor of the disputed building. 3. Kali Charan Gupta, another co sharer, had filed application under section 21 of the Act against respondent no. 2 and her son which was registered as Case No. 54 of 1982. The application was allowed on 30 8-1984 and the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the appellate court. Against the said order, the writ petition No. 4993 of 1986 filed by respondent no. 2 was also dismissed by the High Court on 24th August, 1986 KALI Charan Gupta had taken possession of the rooms situate on the second floor of the building The business, which the landlady was carrying on in the name of Roxy Hotel, was totally closed. 4. Respondent no 2 claims that her family consists of her son Kamal Naresh, her daughter-in-law. 4. Respondent no 2 claims that her family consists of her son Kamal Naresh, her daughter-in-law. two grand-daughters and one grandson. They will open a shop of readymade garments and Kirana in the disputed shop and their need is bona fide. The application was opposed by the petitioner on the allegation that respondent no. 2 was carrying on business of hotel in the name of 'Roxy Hotel'. The family settlement was collusive and the plea of setting up Kamal Naresh in the business of ready made garments was also false. The petitioner will suffer a greater hardship in case the disputed shop is released in favour of respondent no. 2. 5. The petitioner also took a preliminary objection in the case that the Prescribed Authority, before whom the case was instituted by the landlady, was not validly constituted authority The application was rejected He filed writ petition no. 7452 of 1986. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 6th July, 1988 with the observation that the Prescribed Authority shall, as far as possible, decide the matter on merits within four months. The case could not be disposed of within four months. The Prescribed Authority passed a detailed order on 16th March, 1992 allowing the release application filed by respondent no. 2 holding that her need was bona fide to establish her son in business. The petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 132 of 1992 before the District Judge, Allahabad. The appeal was transferred to respondent no 1. 6. On 13th May, 1993 the petitioner filed an application to serve interrogatories on respondent no. 2. The question, which was sought to be replied by respondent no. 2, mainly related to earning of respondent no. 2 and her family, average monthly expenditure of the entire family, jointness of the family, use of Luna Moped by Kamal Naresh in connection with his business, nature and quantum of business run by Kamal Naresh. Apart from this the petitioner also wanted to know as to whether an application for release has been moved in respect of another shop No. 16/17 Vivekanand Marg and whether steps for early hearing of writ petition before the High Court have been taken by respondent no. 2. This application was opposed by respondent no. 2 and Kamal Naresh, son of respondent no. 2, filed a counter affidavit. Respondent no. 1 rejected the application on 9-11 -1993. 2. This application was opposed by respondent no. 2 and Kamal Naresh, son of respondent no. 2, filed a counter affidavit. Respondent no. 1 rejected the application on 9-11 -1993. At the stage of admission respondent no 2 was represented and a counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no. 1 acted illegally in rejecting the application to serve interrogatories upon respondent no. 2 on irrelevant grounds. He placed reliance upon the case Sohan Singh v. Maiku Lal Gupta, 1976 ALJ 156. In this case the Prescribed Authority had rejected the application to serve interrogatories on the opposite party on the ground that the word 'discovery' used in section 34 (1) (d) of the Act refers to the discovery by documents and not discovery by interrogatory. This Court held that the word 'discovery' used in section 34 (1) (d) has to be given a wider meaning including discovery by interrogatories as welt. Respondent No. 1 has not rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to grant leave to serve interrogatories on respondent no. 2 but it has rejected the application on merits. The petitioner has not disclosed any reason as to why he wanted to serve interrogatories at the appellate stage when the appeal was posted for hearing. The application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed in the year 1982. The main object of serving interrogatories is to ascertain the case of the opposite party and to obtain from his opponent information as to the facts material to the questions in dispute between them and to obtain admission of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. 9. The scope of serving interrogatories by way of discovery of certain facts as contained under section 34 (d) of the Act must be on the same principle which is contained under Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It should be at the initial stage of the proceedings. 9. The scope of serving interrogatories by way of discovery of certain facts as contained under section 34 (d) of the Act must be on the same principle which is contained under Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It should be at the initial stage of the proceedings. Once the parties have filed their objections and led evidence the question of serving interrogatories at the appellate stage is normally not to be allowed unless there are some exceptional circumstances and materials are placed before the appellate authority for grant of leave to serve interrogatories on the opposite party. The parties had filed affidavits and other evidence in the case before the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority had recorded findings of fact. There was no exceptional circumstance to permit the petitioner to serve interrogatories on respondent no. 2. If an application for leave to serve interrogatories on the opposite party is filed after lapse of time, the court is justified in rejecting such application. 10. The questions sought to be answered by respondent no. 2 relate to disclosure of certain evidence. The purpose of serving interrogatories is not to obtain an answer as to what will be the evidence of the other side or what evidence he intends to lead in support; of his case. In Upendra Nath Ghose V. Sarda Sundari Ghose, AIR 1917 Cal. 658, it was held that interrogatories should be disallowed if they are really aimed at discovering the nature of the opponent's evidence. Similarly in Dinajpur Trading and Banking Co. v. Probhash Chandra Sen, AIR 1933 Cal. 151, it was held that a party is not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his adverseries, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1972 SC 1302 , held that questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. 11. The petitioner sought answers to the questions relating to the earning of respondent no. 2 and her family members, expenditures and the quantum of business being run by her son Kamal Naresh. The parties had already filed affidavits and led evidence in the case. The Prescribed Authority had considered the evidence led by the parties and by way of interrogatories the petitioner wanted the answer to certain facts which were in the nature of the evidence. The parties had already filed affidavits and led evidence in the case. The Prescribed Authority had considered the evidence led by the parties and by way of interrogatories the petitioner wanted the answer to certain facts which were in the nature of the evidence. The landlady had filed an application on the ground of bona fide need and the authorities concerned had to record finding after satisfying itself whether the landlady had established bona fide need in accordance with law. 12. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons for rejecting the application by respondent no. 1 was erroneous. The application was rejected on the ground that the question sought to be answered were not sufficiently material at the appellate stage. The relevancy of a question sought to be answered at the appellate stage will be different after the case has been decided by the Prescribed Authority. The view taken by respondent no. 1 is not erroneous in law. The writ petition has been filed against an interlocutory order. This Court does not normally interfere in interlocutory orders when a discretion has been exercised by an authority. 13. It is a sad state of affairs that the application was filed under section 21 of the Act in the year 1982 which was decided in the year 1992 inspite of the order of the High Court in the year 1988 to decide the application possibly within four months. The purpose of filing application to serve interrogatories is not to delay the proceedings in appeal. 14. It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, There is no merit in the writ petition. IT is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.