2025:UHC:2057 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UWPMS/1969/2024 UHon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pulak Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. This is tenant’s petition, challenging order dated 11.06.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 13 of 2018. 3. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are landlords of a shop in which petitioners are tenants. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 moved an application for release of the shop under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which is pending before the Prescribed Authority. 4. In the said application, petitioners moved an application with a prayer to direct the landlords to furnish information on certain points, mentioned in the application. The said application has been rejected by Prescribed Authority on the ground that petitioner has not disclosed the relevance of the information sought by him. 5. Petitioner contends that rejection of his application is unsustainable and the information 2025:UHC:2057 sought is relevant for deciding the release application. 6. I have gone through the application moved by petitioner for information and also the order impugned passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital. The information sought by petitioner does not appear to be relevant, therefore, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital was justified in rejecting the application. 7. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. 8. However, it goes without saying that petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application, seeking permission to cross- examine all the witnesses. The application if moved, shall be considered on merits, uninfluenced by this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.03.2025 Mahinder/