Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner claiming to be landlord of the shop in dispute and further claiming that Ram Khelawan was its tenant on behalf of petitioner filed release application against Ram Khelawan for his eviction from the shop. Ram Khelawan, the alleged tenant filed written statement but thereafter he did not appear and did not adduce any evidence. The release application was ex parte allowed on 30.08.2000 by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Sitapur. Thereafter, application for execution was filed under Section 23 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Thereafter, respondent No.1 Shabbir Ali since deceased and survived by legal representatives filed Misc. Rent Case No.1 of 2001, Shabbir Ali Vs. Digamber Jain Mandir for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2000. In the said case, original respondent No.1 contended that he was the owner of the shop in dispute, Ram Khelawan was a servant of the Brahm Kumar Jain, the alleged president of the Mandir and release application filed by him against Ram Khelawan was a sham case and applicant Shabbir Ali was the owner of the property in dispute along with adjoining shops. In the said case, Shabbir Ali filed an application seeking permission of the court to serve interrogatories upon Digamber Jain Mandir, the petitioner. Application and the interrogatories are Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Through the impugned order dated 15.07.2003 passed by Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Sitapur in Misc. Rent Control No.1 of 2001, Sabbir Ali Vs. Digambar Jain Mandir, the application has been allowed. Said order has been challenged through this writ petition. The provision to serve interrogatories has specifically been provided under Section 34(1)(d) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 according to which Prescribed Authority has got the power to "requiring the discovery and production of a document". In the misc. case instituted by respondent No.1, if is is found that either the petitioner was not the owner of the shop in dispute or it had not let out the same to Ram Khelawan and respondent No.1, Shabbir Ali was the owner or in possession of the shop when release application was filed then release order will have to be set aside or held not to be enforceable against Shabbir Ali. In Chhakkilal Vs. In Chhakkilal Vs. A.D.J., AIR 1976 All 8, it has been held that a person can very well raise objections in proceedings under Section 23 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 that the alleged tenant against whom release order was sought was not in possession when the release application was filed and landlord had no concern with the property in dispute. In the interrogatories, 7 questions were asked. The first was as to whether Digamber Jain Mandir was general public religious institution/Mandir. The second was whether there is any registered society of the Mandir. The fourth was that in what year the Mandir constructed the building in dispute. The fifth was whether the Mandir got the map passed from the competent authority for making construction. The sixth was that how much property was let out by the Mandir to Ram Khelawan and when it was let out. The seventh was that whether there was any other tenant in the building, if so, their names. All these questions were wholly irrelevant. There was no dispute regarding extent of accommodation of the shop in dispute. However, the third question was very relevant. It was that when and from whom Digamber Jain temple purchased plot No.103 and details of the sale deed. As the entire plot is not in dispute, hence Shabbir Ali had no authority to ask about the ownership of the temple regarding whole plot. However, temple is required to give details of its ownership and or landlordship of the shop in dispute. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order is set aside in respect of interrogatories No.1, 2, 4 to 7. The impugned order is approved in respect of interrogatory No.3 and that also with the following modification. "The petitioner is required to reply and give details of its ownership and or landlordship of the shop in dispute." _____________