JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. During the pendency of Rent Petition RBT No. 245/2 of 15/2012, before, the learned Rent Controller concerned, the applicant/respondent herein, tenant in the hitherto demised premises, instituted an application, cast under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC, (i) wherein he sought an order, from, the learned Rent Controller, of, the landlady being directed to permit discoveries vis-à-vis the tenant/petitioner herein, of, originals, of, an agreement of 27.7.1992, purportedly executed inter-se the deceased husband, of the non-applicant, namely one Sh. Amrik Singh, AND the petitioner herein (ii) under agreement whereof, he had agreed to provide in the re-constructed building concerned, accommodations to the applicant/petitioner herein. The aforesaid agreement, was, averred in the application to be both just and essential, for settling the issue appertaining, to the rights and entitlements of the applicant, in the re-constructed building. The non-applicant had instituted reply thereto, wherein she proceeded to deny the existence, of, original, of, aforesaid agreement, also denied, of, original thereof being in her possession. 2. Under the impugned order, a dis-affirmative verdict was recorded upon the apposite application by the learned Rent Controller and being aggrieved therefrom, the applicant is led to assail it, before this Court, by his casting the instant petition herebefore. 3. The learned Judge, has, apparently falling into grave error by making a conclusion (i) that the aforesaid agreement was neither just nor essential, for, hence an effective adjudication being meted upon the apposite lis. The reasons’ for his making the aforesaid conclusion, is, grooved (ii) upon, under a family settlement, occurring inter-se the respondent herein vis-à-vis the deceased landlord, exclusive rights in the re-constructed building being bestowed upon her. However, even if, in the aforesaid family settlement, exclusive rights in the re-constructed building stand bestowed upon the respondent herein, (iii) nonetheless agreement, if any, executed inter-se the petitioner herein vis-à-vis the deceased landlord, was also along with, the aforesaid family settlement enjoined to be borne in mind, (iv) besides was in conjunction therewith enjoined to be evaluated, especially vis-a-vis the comparative evidentiary worth’s, of each. Importantly also thereupon issues were enjoined to be struck vis-à-vis the apposite agreement (v) whereafter evidence was enjoined to be adduced thereon, by the contesting litigants’, (vi) AND preeminently, upon, their conjoint appraisal, the comparative probative worth’s, of, both was enjoined to be assessed, (vii) AND for tangible reasons’ the evidentiary worth, of, one or the other, was, also to be clinchingly rested. Contrarily, the learned trial Judge, has, in a slip shod manner and without application of mind, proceeded, to come to a conclusion, that, the aforesaid agreement was neither just nor essential, for deciding the controversy, (viii) even when for the aforestated reasons, the evidentiary worth thereof, was, yet alongwith, the evidentiary worth of the family settlement rather enjoined to be conjointly evaluated, appraisals, of, evidentiary worth’s whereof, would occur, only after completing the aforesaid procedural steps. In aftermath, the learned Rent Controller if he deems fit, may at an appropriate stage, strike, an issue appertaining to the agreement aforestated. 4. In aftermath, the impugned order, suffers, from a gross perversity and absurdity. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is made clear that in case the respondent herein, does not on oath, after hers receiving the interrogatories, from, the petitioner herein, hence mete answers thereto, thereupon the consequences thereof, borne In Order 21 Rule 11 CPC, shall be imperatively entailed upon her. All pending applications, also stand disposed of.