Mangat Ram vs Jai Parkasli

A.L.Vaidya, J.—Admit. Mr.G.D. Vernia. Advocate waives service of notice after admission, on behalf of respondent.

Learned Counsel for the parties pray that the matter be decided on merits, today.

The present petitioner is a landlord, who has filed a petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant on various grounds.

The tenant has denied the tenancy and claimed ownership in him and in this behalf Issue No.2 has been framed, which is as under:

Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent? OPR.

The landlord hasbrought on record Ex.PW-2/A-the alleged agreement executed by respondent Jai Parkash wherein according to the landlord, the respondent has ''admitted'' the tenancy''. Tenant Jai Parkash was examined as DW-1 before the Rent Controller and this agreement was put to him. The respondent has denied the execution of this agreement and deposed that Ex.PW-2/A does not bear his signatures as encircled A and B Thereafter, the landlord preferred an application u/s 73 off the Indian Evidence Act. with the prayer that the respondent be directed to give his admitted signatures in Hindi in the Court in the presence of the Court and the same be sent for comparison with the signatures encircled A'' on Ex.PW-2/A to the Government Hand Writing Questioned Document Examiner and the expert to give his report in accordance with law.

This application was contested by the respondent.

The learned Rent Controller, disallowed the application vide order dated 19.2.1998.

The aforesaid order has been assailed in the present revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been scrutinized.

It appears that the learned Rent Controller fell into an error in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him. Learned Rent Controller observed that it was the duty of the petitioner to collect the evidence and not for the Court to do the same. It was also observed that the application appears to have been filed to delay the matter.

The aforesaid grounds given by the learned Rent Controller were not legally available in order to dispose of the application.

There is no dispute that Ex. PW-2/A if accepted as legally proved document, it contains the alleged admission of the respondent regarding his relationship with the landlord. In this document, if legally proved, there is a definite recital wherein the respondent has admitted the tenancy in favour of the landlord apart from other aspects. With that background, it is an important document to be looked into by the learned Rent Controller to dispose of the real controversy between the parties, which is the subject-matter of Issue No.2. as referred to above.

Respondent when examined as DW-1. has denied the execution of the said document and also denied his signatures, which were alleged to be there on this document. Needless to say, signature of a person, if denied, could be proved legally through various modes and one of the mode is to compare the disputed signature(s) with the admitted one by an expert, whose opinion has to be taken note of to decide the alleged dispute on the basis of other evidence brought on record. In the present case, as pointed out above, respondent Jai Parkash has denied his signatures on this document Ex. PW-2/A. The landlord, as such, under the law has selected one of the modes to prove the signatures by preferring an application u/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in case the application as prayed for is favourably considered, inasmuch as in case this document was not having signature(s) of the respondent the opinion would be appreciated in that matter.

The learned Rent Controller observed that the present attempt by preferring an application by the landlord in nothing but asking the Court to collect the evidence in favour of the landlord I think such an inference is most uncalled for. In the given circumstances, the landlord has selected one of the legal modes to prove signatures when those have been dented by the respondent-tenant whose signatures were alleged to be there on the alleged document. The Court''s duty is to bring on record all the relevant fads necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. It is not on the asking of the Court that the signatures are being sent to the Expert, but on the other hand it is at the instance of the petitioner-landlord that such prayer is made to the Court and it is the Court which has to pass appropriate order in such circumstances. With this background, the observations of the learned Rent Controller, that the Court was not to collect the evidence for a party, were not applicable in the present case. Moreover, the other ground taken by the learned Rent Controller regarding causing of delay again is not relevant especially when in a case of present nature it is the tenant who is to be benefited by delaying the matter and not the landlord.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has cited Diwakar Dutt Shastri v. Ranjil. 1997(1) SLJ 242: Bhojraj Kunwarji Oil Mill and Ginning Factory and Another Vs. Yograjsinha Shankarsinha Parihar and Others, . Both these rulings are not applicable to the facts of the present case and cannot be favourably considered in favour of the tenant.

Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts present in this case, which are reflected from the record itself, the learned Rent Controller acted illegally in passing the order under reference which accordingly is set aside. The application u/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is allowed; as prayed for. The parlies are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 8th September. 1998. The learned Rent Controller is directed to comply with the order passed by this Court in the background of the relief granted in favour of landlord. The Registry to send the records to the concerned Court forthwith, so us to reach there on or before the date fixed without any undue delay The petition stands disposed of.