JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This is tenants’ writ petition. Original landlord Lakshman Das filed suit for eviction against original tenant Bengali Ram in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 828 of 1984. Property in dispute is stated to be a house containing one room, one kitchen, one tin shed and other amenities Rent is only Rs. 16/- per month. The matter was several times remanded by the revisional Court. Once the tenant was also dispossessed. Thereafter possession was restored. Both the original landlord and the original tenant have died and are survived by their legal representatives. 3. The first point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is regarding the service of notice. Original tenant Bengali Ram was himself an employee of Postal Department, hence it was almost impossible for any postman to give false report regarding service. Notice was served through registered post. There is always presumption of service through registered post. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next argued that the alleged signatures of the original tenant on the Acknowledgement Due (A.D.) accompanying registered notice, were compared by the Court himself, which was not permissible under the law. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in State v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 S.C. 14 to contend that Judge can not play the role of Expert and compare the admitted signature with the disputed one. In the said authority, the only thing which has been stated, is that comparison of signatures may be made by a handwriting expert (Section 45) or by one familiar with the hand-writing of the person concerned (Section 47) or by the Court (Paras-24 & 25). Thereafter, in Para 29, it was further held that there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare disputed hand-writing with the admitted hand-writing. However, without the aid of the evidence of any hand-writing expert, the Judge should as a matter of 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 caused of an offence solely on comparison made by himself. In this regard, some later authorities of the Supreme Court may also be noticed, which are reported in : 1. AIR 1980 SC 531 “Murarilal v. State of M.P.” 2. In this regard, some later authorities of the Supreme Court may also be noticed, which are reported in : 1. AIR 1980 SC 531 “Murarilal v. State of M.P.” 2. AIR 1997 SC 3255 “Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka” 3. AIR 1999 SC 2544 “K.S. Satyanarayana v. V. R. Narayana Rao” 4. AIR 2003 SC 1796 “Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank” 5. In the fourth authority, reliance was placed upon the first authority and it was held in Para-13 that : “It is clear that even when experts’ evidence is not there, Court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter.” 6. In the third authority, it was held that trial Court should have also compared the hand-writings as provided in Section 73 of the Evidence Act. 7. In the second authority, reliance was placed upon State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14 (supra) and it was held in Para-38 that : “As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Act.” 8. In the said authority Supreme Court Judges, themselves compared the signatures and mentioned in Para 39 as follows : “We have already recorded above that on the comparison of the signature in the “Register of Lodgers” with the appellant’s signature on the “Vakalatnama”, we have not found any dissimilarity and are convinced that the appellant himself had signed the “Register of Lodgers”. 9. Even the tenants-petitioners, who are legal representatives of original tenant Bengali Ram did not get any expert opinion on the two signatures i.e. disputed one and admitted one. Moreover as stated earlier, as Bengali Ram was himself an employee of Postal Department hence it was almost impossible for any other postman to get the signature of some other person on the acknowledgement due alleging himself to be Bengali Ram. Moreover as stated earlier, as Bengali Ram was himself an employee of Postal Department hence it was almost impossible for any other postman to get the signature of some other person on the acknowledgement due alleging himself to be Bengali Ram. Postman, who tendered registered notice to Bengali Ram, was examined and he clearly stated that he knew Bengali Ram but in cross examination he stated that he could not say whether on the acknowledgement due the signature of Bengali Ram was there or not. This clearly amounted to service. In the instant case there was no expert from either side, hence the Judge could see whether from the naked eye disputed and admitted signatures appeared to be the same or not. In any case as the petitioners did not examine any expert hence they cannot complain that the trial Court himself compared the signature on the acknowledgement due with the admitted signature. Even if the finding regarding disputed signature being that of Bengali Ram on the basis of comparison of signatures is ignored, still the presumption of service was there as the letter had been sent through registered post on the correct address. Any foul play on the part of the postman is ruled out by the fact that Bengali Ram himself was an employee of Postal Department. The fact that Bengali Ram on A.D. put a date which was holiday is immaterial. No person by giving a wrong date can take advantage of the same. 10. After the last remand order J.S.C.C. Agra decided S.C.C. Suit No. 828 of 1984 on 5.9.2006 and decreed the suit through the said judgment. Against the said judgment and decree tenants-petitioners filed S.C.C. Revision No. 49 of 2006. A.D.J. Court No. 13, Agra dismissed the revision on 30.8.2007. Hence this writ petition. 11. Even though the rent was only Rs. 16/- per month still tenant defaulted in payment of the same. He also did not deposit the same till the first date of hearing to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. However, the question of material alteration was decided in favour of the tenants. 12. I do not find least error in the impugned judgments, decree and the order of the Courts below. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. However, the question of material alteration was decided in favour of the tenants. 12. I do not find least error in the impugned judgments, decree and the order of the Courts below. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. Tenants-petitioners are granted six months time to vacate provided that : (1) Within one month from today tenants file an undertaking before the Trial Court to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords-respondents. (2) For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs. 3,000/- (@ Rs. 500/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the trial Court and shall immediately be paid to the landlords-respondents. (3) Within one month from today tenants shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date before the trial Court for immediate payment to landlords-respondents. 14. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants-petitioners shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. 15. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or decreetal amount and Rs. 3,000/- are not deposited within one month then tenants-petitioners shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 16. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs. 3,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. —————