JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The landlords/respondents herein, instituted petition, before the Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., seeking therethrough eviction, of, the tenants/petitioners herein, from the, demised premises, on the ground, that, they bonafidely require it, for, their personal use. The afore petition was contested by the tenants/petitioners herein. On the contentious pleadings of the contesting parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the requisite issues. When the afore petition had reached, at the stage, of adduction of the petitioners'' evidence, applications cast, under the provisions of Order 11 Rules 1,2 and 4 readwith section 151 CPC, stood instituted, before the learned Rent Controller, seeking therethrough meteing of answers, to, certain interrogatories, hence (a) devolving upon the landlords'' petition for eviction, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, being not bonafide, given, the afore premises being not required by them, for, theirs establishing therein, any commercial enterprise, (b) and, for also purportedly repulsing the landlords hence propagation, qua, within 5 years, from, the date, of, filing of the petition theirs, hence vacating any commercial establishment, occurring, within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Reiteratedly, therethrough, the tenants/applicants/petitioners herein strive, to, stain the aforestated grounds, with an aura of malafides, and, obviously also concert, to, bely the afore endeavors. However, as aforestated, upon, the apposite issue the discharging evidence thereon rather remained un-adduced by the petitioners herein, and, obviously, onus, after closure of the petitioners''/landlords'' evidence, rather thereat, the respondents, may, avail an opportunity, to, adduce evidence in rebuttal, to, the discharging evidence, hence adduced by the petitioners therein, vis-a-vis, the relevant issue, (c) besides obviously also through meteing suggestions, to the petitioners''/landlords'' witnesses, during, the course of each being cross-examined, hence apt strivings were recourse-able, for, belying the afore-stated grounds, for, eviction hence purveyed, in, the apt eviction petition. 2. Be that as it may, the interrogatories wherefrom the discovery of evidence, for, succoring the tenants/petitioners herein propagation, are, extracted hereinafter:- "1. How many non residential premises are owned by father in law of the petitioner No.2 namely Sh. Narender Kumar Sood within the urban area of M.C. Shimla including the property owned by him and inherited by him. 2. How many accommodations have legally fall in the share of Narender Kumar Sood within the urban area of M.C Shimla. 3. That how many storeys/floors are therein in the said building. 4. Narender Kumar Sood within the urban area of M.C. Shimla including the property owned by him and inherited by him. 2. How many accommodations have legally fall in the share of Narender Kumar Sood within the urban area of M.C Shimla. 3. That how many storeys/floors are therein in the said building. 4. How many rooms in each storeys of the said building are constructed. 5. How many rooms/shops are rented out in the building owned by Sh. N.K Sood. 6. How many rooms in the said building owned by Sh. N.K Sood are rented out for commercial purpose/shops guest house, boutique readymade garments stores or for any other commercial purposes. 7. How many rooms in the first floor, i.e above the road level floor are rented out for residential purpose and how many rooms are rented out for non-residential/commercial purpose and who are the tenants and what is the nature of use of the premises in the building of Sh. N.K Sood. 8. What is the Municipal number of the building owned by the father in law of the petitioner No.2 Smt. Archna Sood namely Sh. Narender Kumar Sood. 9. How many floors/stories are there in the building owned by said Sh. Narender Kumar Sood. 10. How many tenants have been inducted in the building of Sh Narender Kumar Sood Ram Bazar Shimla.H.P. 11. How many rooms are there in each stories of the said building of Sh. Narender Kumar Sood. 12. How many rooms/shops are rented out in the said building of Sh. Narender Kumar Sood. 13. How many rooms in the said building of Sh. Narender Kumar Sood are rented out for commercial purpose/shops, guest house, boutique readymade garments stores or for any other commercial purposes. 14 How many rooms in the first floor i.e above the road level floor are rented out for residential purpose and how many rooms are rented out for non-residential commercial purpose and who are the tenants and what is the nature of use of the premises in the said building of Sh. Narender Kumar sood. 15. How many premises in the said building of Sh. Narender Kumar Sood are lying vacant and how many are being occupied alongwith the details of the tenants and the nature of use of the premises and the business being carried from the nonresidential/commercial premises. 16. Whether any petition or case for eviction against Sh. Narender Kumar sood. 15. How many premises in the said building of Sh. Narender Kumar Sood are lying vacant and how many are being occupied alongwith the details of the tenants and the nature of use of the premises and the business being carried from the nonresidential/commercial premises. 16. Whether any petition or case for eviction against Sh. Surjan Singh Kukreja owner/proprietor of Frontier Cloth House, Lower Bazar Shimla has been initiated by Sh. Narender Kumar Sood. 17. If so what is the ground on which the eviction of the tenant Sh. Surjan Singh Kukreja is sought by Sh. Narender Kumar Sood. 18. What is the status of the case filed against Sh. Surjan Singh Kukreja by Sh. Narender Kumar Sood. 19. Whether Sh. Rupain Sood has obtained any CST or GST number for the purpose of doing any business. 20. Whether Sh. Rupain Sood has obtained licence from M.C Shimla or any other competent authority under shop and commercial establishment act to run the shop/business. 21. What is the Municipal number of the premises in which Sh. Rupain Sood is residing. 22. What is the address given by Sh. Rupain Sood before the different authorities with regard to the address of his shop/business. 23. What is the qualification of the petitioner No.2. 24. Whether the petitioner No.2 had an course or diploma in the business or trade. 25. How many floors/stores have been rented out to M/s Ram Chander Rewa Nand in the building owned by Narender Kumar Sood with complete description of the accommodation and the floors/stories running the business of grocery and using the rented premises for store/godown." 3. Upon the afore applications, an order of dismissal was pronounced by the learned Rent Controller, and, the petitioners herein being aggrieved therefrom, cast a challenge thereon, by theirs instituting the instant petition before this Court. 4. Initially, the expostulations of law appertaining to the justifiability of the afore application are encapsulated, in a judgment, rendered in a case titled as Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi, (1972) AIR SC 1302 relevant paragraph 27 thereof, is extracted hereinafter:- "27. Questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question". The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question". Questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to "any matters in question". The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question". Viewed thus, interrogatories 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held to be irrelevant 5. A perusal thereof makes a candid echoing, vis-a-vis, (a) question(s) borne in the interrogatories rather when, can be, endeavored for elicitation, of, answers thereto, through cross-examination(s) of adversar(ies) evidence, thereupon hence theirs being construable to be not necessary or relevant, unless the interrogatories appertain, to, the matter in issue (b) theirs bearing, a, close connection with the matter in issue, (c) besides the afore expostulations, of, law, stand, also borne in a judgment, the Delhi High Court, carried in a decision reported in 1995 (2) RCR, decision whereof, is, encapsulated in case titled as Jagdish Chandra Chawla versus 111rd Additional District Judge, (d) wherein also, further expostulations, are, cast vis-a-vis the justifiability, of, leave being granted, upon, the requisite application, the trite postulations whereof, (e) are qua the purpose of serving interrogatories being 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. Combining the effects of the afore expostulations of law, borne in the judgments supra, (i) alongwith, the, hereat contentious issue erupting inter-se, the litigants hereat, and, it rather appertaining to the bonafide requirement of the landlord to seek eviction, from, the demised premises, of, the tenants/petitioners herein, (ii) on the ground, of, the former requiring, it, for theirs therein hence establishing therein, a, commercial establishment, (iii) and with the afore espousal, being contested besides when the petition, has arrived, at the stage, of, adduction, of, the petitioners'' discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore issue, (iv) and, when thereat the afore, through, meteing of suggestions, during, the course of theirs'' holding the petitioners'' witnesses, to cross-examination, hence may concert to bely the afore bonafides (v) and, even upon the stage of theirs'' adducing rebuttal evidence, if need be, vis-a-vis, the relevant issue, it being also permissible for them, to, adduce evidence, for, thereupon theirs belying the afore constituted grounds, (vi) whereas visibly with the apposite petition, being, rather at a premature stage, and, with the afore endevours, being un-recoursed, whereas, upon, theirs being recoursed, and, rather therethrough(s) the apposite belyings'' being available to be secured, through, apt suggestions or apt rebuttal evidence. In aftermath hence within the ambit of, the, judgment supra rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court, (a) it appears that when the endeavor of cross-examination, is, an appropriate recoursing, for, the tenants, to, strive to strip the landlords'' apt bonafides, and, to also hence empower them to succor their espousal, (b) besides when also within the ambit supra of verdict, rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the gravamen, of, the interrogatories rather wherethroughs discoveries of evidence, is, sought, rather not appertaining, to, hence within the legal limits of MC Shimla, any commercial establishment, (c) being owned by the landlords rather with the interrogatories are, vis-a-vis, commercial establishments, occurring, within the limits of MC Shimla, hence being owned, by the father in law, of, petitioner No.2, namely Mr. Narinder Kumar of Sood, (d) thereupon when the demised premises, is not, owned by Mr. Narinder Kumar of Sood, (d) thereupon when the demised premises, is not, owned by Mr. Narinder Kumar Sood, rather are owned by respondent No.2 herein, and, when the landlords purportedly require the demised premise(s), for their bonafide use, (e) and, hence seek eviction of the tenants therefrom, (f) thereupon the afore prime factum probandum, galvanizes, an inference that the interrogatories, hence, hold no connection or nexus, vis-avis, the core issue hence engaging the parties at lis. Consequently, the reasons assigned by the learned Rent Controller, are, well merited. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. Impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.