JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore dated 7.6.82 in Title Appeal no. 723 of 1981 reversing those of the learned Munsif Additional Court, Sealdah in Title Suit no. 12 of 1979. 2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted the said suit for eviction of the defendant-respondent from the disputed premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and unauthorised transfer of possession and/or assignment of the suit premises to Smt. Renubala Roy. It was alleged that the defendant was a defaulter since February, 1977. The defendant denied both the grounds. The defence case was that the Durwan of the plaintiff refused to accept the rent for the month of February, 1977 and thereafter the defendant met the plaintiff and paid in cash Rs. 960/- being rents for the months of February, 1977 to July 1977, and the plaintiff promised to send the rent receipt through the Durwan but he did not send the rent receipt and thereafter the defendant deposited rent from August, 1977 to December, 1977 with the Rent Controller. The further defence case was that Renubala, a relation of the defendant had been living with the defendant in the suit premises as his caretaker and cook and there was no transfer of exclusive possession or assignment as alleged. 3. The learned Munsif has held that the defendant is a defaulter from February, 1977 to July, 1917 and as there was no compliance with sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) of s. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the defendant was not entitled to protection under s. 17(4). He has further held that being not preceded by valid tender the deposit of rent for the month of August, 1977 and the subsequent deposits are not valid deposits. He has further held that the defendant has made an unautborised transfer of possession or assignment in favour of Renubala. He has accordingly passed a decree for ejectment against the defendant. 4. Relying on a rent receipt (Ext. He has further held that the defendant has made an unautborised transfer of possession or assignment in favour of Renubala. He has accordingly passed a decree for ejectment against the defendant. 4. Relying on a rent receipt (Ext. H) purported to have been granted by the plaintiff on 10.8.77, the lower appellate Court has, however, held that there was payment of rent from February, 1977 to July, 1977 and that in view of refusal of the plaintiff to grant a receipt after payment of rent, the subsequent deposits from August, 1977 with the Rent Controller must be regarded as valid deposits. He has also reversed the finding of the learned Munsif with regard to the alleged unauthorised transfer of possession/assignment in favour of Renubala. He has accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif and dismissed the suit with costs. Being aggrieved the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 5. Mr. Roychoudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that the finding of the lower appellate court with regard to payment of not from February, 1977 to July, 1977 based solely on his own comparison of the signature in the deputed rent receipt (Ext. H) with that in the admitted not receipt cannot be sustained. In order to appreciate the argument of Mr. Roy Choudhury certain undisputed facts may be stated. The specific case of the defendant in the written statement is that though rents from February, 1977 to July, 1977 were paid sometime in August, 1977, the plaintiff did not grant any rent receipt. But during the trial the defendant produced the rent receipt (Ext. H) purported to have been granted by the plaintiff on 10.8.77 and the defendant has come with the story during trial that he received this rent receipt by registered post on 18.8.70, i.e. during the pendency of the suit. The genuineness of the rent receipt was challenged by the plaintiff who denied his signature in rent receipt. No handwriting expert examined it. The learned lower court has compared the disputed signature with the admitted signature of the plaintiff in another rent receipt and on the sole basis of such comparison he has arrived at the finding that the writings are of the same person Mr. No handwriting expert examined it. The learned lower court has compared the disputed signature with the admitted signature of the plaintiff in another rent receipt and on the sole basis of such comparison he has arrived at the finding that the writings are of the same person Mr. Roy Choudhury, has contended that while it is competent on the part of a Judge or a Magistrate to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature for himself, it is unsafe to rely entirely on such personal comparison and it is not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether two agree with each other and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. This contention has substance and must be accepted. In the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram reported in AIR 1979 SC 14 , the Supreme Court has held that although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the, admitted writing, even without the aid of evidence of any hand-writing expert, the Judge should, as a matter or prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a hand-writing which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person's action of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other, arid the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. Reference may also be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Saurendra Mohan Basu v Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1961 Cal 461 (F.B.). Referring to the decisions in JC Glastaun v. Sanatan Pal AIR 1925 Cal 485, Darshan Singh v. Prabhu Singh AIR 1946 All 67 & Kessarbai v. Tethabhai AIR 1925 PC 277, it has been held that while it is competent on the part of a Judge or a Magistrate to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature for himself under s. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is unsafe to rely entirely on such personal comparison. This is particularly so in view of the suspicious circumstances in which the rent receipt (Ext. H) has been produced. The specific case of the defendant in the written statement is that no receipt was granted by the plaintiff though the rent from February, 1977 was paid in cash yet a rent receipt (Ext. H) purported to have been granted by the plaintiff was produced at the time of trial with a story that this was received from the plaintiff by registered post during the pencency of the suit. There was neither amendment of the written statement nor any additional written statement incorporating this important subsequent event. The lower appellate court also did not consider the utter improbability of the belated defence story which was considered by the trial court. If the plaintiff really prepared the rent receipt and signed it on the date of payment namely 10.8.77, there is no reason why the plaintiff would withhold it. It is all the more improbable that after deliberately withholding the rent receipt in spite of payment of rent the plaintiff would send the rent receipt to the defendant by registered post during the pendency of the suit after bringing a suit for eviction of the tenant/defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent for the same period. The defendant also did not adduce any evidence that he received the rent receipt by registered post on 10.8.77. In such circumstances, the learned Judge ought not to have relied upon Ext. H solely upon his own comparison of the signature in Ext. H with the admitted signature of the plaintiff in another rent receipt. The finding of the lower appellate court cannot therefore, be sustained. 6. In order to constitute valid deposit with the Rent Controller, it must be preceded by a valid tender under s. 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In this case there is no evidence that the defendant tendered the rent for the month of August, 1977 within time to the plaintiff so the deposit of rent for the month of August, 1977 and the subsequent deposits are not valid deposits. 7. It appears that the defendant filed petitions under s. 17(2) and s. 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which were rejected by the court being barred by limitation. 7. It appears that the defendant filed petitions under s. 17(2) and s. 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which were rejected by the court being barred by limitation. Though the defendant took some time for moving the High Court against the said order of rejection, he did not ultimately take any steps and the order of rejection stands. The trial court has, therefore, rightly held that the defendant is not entitled to protection under s. 17(4) of the Act. 8. The finding of the lower appellate Court that there was no unauthorised transfer of possession or assignment in favour of Renubala cannot, however, be called in question in second appeal. The learned Judge has specifically found that the defendant is still in possession of the disputed premises along with Renubala who merely looks after him and is his caretaker. This is a finding of fact arrived at upon consideration of the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case which is final and cannot be called in question in second appeal. 9. But in view of the above finding on the question of default, the appeal is liable to succeed. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the court below except the finding on unauthorised transfer/assignment in favour of Renubala are set aside. The Judgment and decree of the trial court except the finding on the said issue are restored. I make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed except the finding on unauthorised transfer.