PRITPAL SINGH, J. - (1.)BY this revision petition the order of the Rent Controller dated October 16, 1982, disallowing an application for issuance of interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been challenged by the tenant Vikramjit Singh who has claimed fixation of fair rent of the tenancy premises occupied by him.
(2.)THE petitioner Vikramjit Singh is occupying the tenancy premises as a tenant of the respondent Gurdev Singh. He has filed an application for fixation of fair rent of these premises under section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deliver interrogatories to the respondent for discovery of certain facts. He wanted the respondent to answer the following questions :
"1. What is the cost of the plot over which the demised building is constructed ? 2. What is costs of demised building structure over the plot ? 3. In which year the construction of the demised building was undertaken, the same was completed and the same was rented out ? 4. How much building costs have you shown to the Income Tax Department ? 5. Who was your tenant upto 1977 i.e. before the applicant's tenancy under the respondent began and now much rent the previous tenant was paying to you in respect of the demised building whether such rent by the previous tenant for the whole building owned by you ? 6. When did you hold charge as Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana Improvement Trust calculate period of holding such charges ? 7. How much is the built in covered area of the building owned by you showing separately the built in covered area of the room with attached bath on the manine floor ?

The application was resisted by the respondent on the plea that the question contained in the interrogatories are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determining fair rent of the premises. The learned Rent Controller accepted this contention and dismissed the petitioner's application for permission to deliver interrogatories.

(3.)THE contention of the learned petitioner's counsel is that the interrogatories sought to be delivered to the respondent are pertinent to determine the fair rent of the tenancy premises and therefore the learned Rent Controller has returned an erroneous finding that the question contained in the interrogatories are irrelevant.