JUDGMENT 1. The impugned order is dated 5.6.2010 whereby the application filed by the tenant under Order 11 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 36(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the “DRCA”) had been dismissed. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the DRCA. The impugned order had dismissed the application holding that the procedure contained for dealing with a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA is the procedure enlisted in Section 25(B) of the said Act. By the present application the tenant had sought to put interrogatories to the landlord. Court had noted that this argument can be raised by the tenant even in his application for leave to defend. The impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity. 2. In Pritpal Singh v. Satpal Singh reported in I (2010) SLT 116=I (2010) CLT 114 (SC)=2010 RLR 15 (SC), the Apex Court has noted that the procedure for dealing with an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA is contained in Section 25(B) of the said Act which is a complete Code in itself. The Apex Court had noted that Rule 23 of the DRCA is not applicable to the special class of landlords as has been enlisted under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA. Rule 23 is only a guideline being a general rule by which the Rent Controller in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act can in those circumstances be guided by the Code. Impugned order dismissing the present application petition that such an application is not maintainable under Section 25(B) of the DRCA does not in any manner suffer from infirmity. Petition is dismissed.