A.K. Aggarwal vs Shanti Devi
1995 Latest Caselaw 842 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

(1) This petition is directed against an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 25.3.95 allowing the applications of the respondent landlady under 0. 11 R. 1 and 0. 11 R. 12 CPC. The petitioners have challenged the said order by way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by making a similar grievance and this Court had vide its judgment dated 13.9.94 rejected the petitions filed by the present petitioners.

(2) The respondent landlord filed an eviction case on grounds contained in S. 14.(1),(b) (d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging amongst other things that the tenants bad acquired or been allotted another residential accommodation bearing no. 89. Sunder Nagar and that neither the tenant/respondent no. 1 nor any member of his family was residing in the tenanted premises for the last more than six months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The eviction petition was filed on 9.3.79. The petition is at the stage of evidence. The landlord's evidence is yet to be completed. After this Court laid down the procedure to be followed with respect to the applications of the landlady under Order Xi Cpc vide judgment dated 13.9.94 the Additional R.C. passed the order which is the subject matter of the present petition. I cannot help getting an impression that the tenant is trying to avoid answering the interrogatories which were allowed to be served on him for one reason or the other and in the process, the proceedings in the main eviction petition are being delayed which suits the object of the tenants.

(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Rent Controller has no power to order service of interrogatories or to direct the other party to answer interrogatories in view of S. 36 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. S- 36 refers to the powers of the Controller. Amongst the various powers enumerated therein, there is a reference to "requiring the discoveries and production of documents." This is contained in S. 36(2)(b) of the Act. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that reference to discovery and production of documents in said Section 36 has to be restricted to discoveries and production of documents alone and the same does not cover the power to require the other party to answer interrogatories. Order Xi Civil Procedure Code has the heading "DISCOVERY And INSPECTION". R. 1 of O. 11 has the heading "Discovery by Interrogatories". This shows that discovery can be by way of answer to interrogatories as also by way of affidavit qua documents sought to be discovered. Thus, I find no merit in the argument that the Controller has no power to direct answer by way of interrogatories. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the interrogatories sought to be answered by the petitioners as contained in the questionnaire are irrelevant and beyond pleadings. I am unable to accept this contention. I have been taken through the pleadings in the eviction petition as also the questions framed by way of interrogatories to be answered by the petitioners. Having persued the same. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the questions are irrelevant and beyond pleadings.

(4) The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent landlord has availed various opportunities and she cannot avail of the provisions of Order Xi Civil Procedure Code to supplement her case. I am unable to accept this argument. Order Xi of the Cpc, contains salutary provision which arc intended to curtail evidence thereby expediting trial of suit and as such their provisions are very useful. They have to be liberally used and parties have to be encouraged to use them in the course of trial. The provision of Order Xi, Civil Procedure Code . do not deserve a technical or truncated approach. Ultimately the use of these provisions saves time of the Court and costs of litigation to the parties. "Jessel M.R. in Attorney-General vs. Gashill (1882) 20 Ch. 0. 519, said: "Now, one of the great objects of interrogatories when properly administered has always been to save evidence, that is to diminish the burden of proof which was otherwise on the plaintiff. Their object is not merely to discover facts which will inform the plaintiff as to evidence to be obtained, but also to save the expense of proving a part on the case. Cotton L.T., J, said: Interrogatories are "not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge on that which he does not already know but include the getting an admission of anything which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant."

(5) My attention has been drawn to a judgment of this Court in 0. S. No. 4 & 5 of 15730 entitled Suresh Chand vs. KM. Vinay Devi etc. decided on 14.9.73. Unfortunately I am informed that this judgment has not been reported though it is an illuminating judgment so far as the provisions of Order Xi Civil Procedure Code . are concerned. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the said judgment to quote : 'A party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. The object is to obtain an admission from the opponent which will make the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have been. The purpose is to get from the defendant an admission of that which no doubt he denied by his defense but not on oath. About the fact of the parentage of the appellant Suresh Chand a fact which is within the knowledge and an admission of it by him must obviously save enormous amount of expense at the trial. Lindley L. J. in the case of Attorney- General (supra) said : "It is no reason for declining to answer the interrogatories to say that the same information may be got by cross-exam, at the trial". If the appellants answer the question regarding parentage and the Will of the deceased Thakur Dass, the plaintiff would be relieved of the obligation to prove to that extent. She will not be required to call witnesses. She will save great expenditure and trouble if these interrogatories are answered. It may possibly happen that the plaintiff will find that she has no need to call any witnesses. In short interrogatories are admissible which go to support the applicant's case or to impeach or destroy the opponent's case Plymouth Mutual Co-op. Society vs. Traders Publishing Association (1906) 1 Rs per Sterrang LJ. at page 415. This means that the right to interrogate is not confined to the facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the facts already in issue (per Lord Esher. M.K. in Marriot vs. Chamberlain ( ?86) QBD. 154. In the case of Suthurland (Duke) v. British Dominions Land Settlement Corporation. 1926 1 C.H. 746, Mr. Justice Tomlin said that the administering of interrogatories is a step which is more often desirable than undesirable and is to be encouraged rather than to be discouraged, because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage than otherwise would be the case, to the advantage of all parties concerned. The petition has no merit and is dismissed leaving parties to bear their respective costs. The counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the dismissal of the present petition, the petitioner may be granted some time to answer the interrogatories and file affidavit of discovery of documents. In view of this request I grant them four weeks time from today to do the needful and to comply with the order dated 25th March, 1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller.