Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3890 (MAD)

Rahima Bee v. P. Balakrishnan

2014-10-16

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioners in M.P.No.331 of 2008 in R.C.O.P.No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif, Alandur are the petitioners in the present revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They are the landlords and they have filed the R.C.O.P for eviction on the ground of willful default. 3. The tenant, namely the respondent herein is contending that there was no willful default because the price of certain goods purchased by the third petitioner Nizamudeen was adjusted towards the rent and the credit bills came to be produced by the respondent/tenant. 4. The revision petitioners herein/landlords, who disputed genuineness of the said documents, have chosen to file a petition in I.A.No.331 of 2008 for an order referring the said disputed documents to the forensic expert for opinion after comparing with the admitted signatures of Nizamudeen. The said petition was resisted contending that no contemporary document showing the signature of Nizamudeen was produced for being compared with the signature found in the disputed documents and on the other hand, the signatures obtained from him in the Court after the filing of the petition and a document purporting to be a lease deed to which the respondent was not a party alone, were sought to be produced. According to the respondent, the said documents contained disguised signatures so as to make them differ from the disputed documents sought to be relied on by the respondent/tenant. 5. The learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Alandur held that the signatures which were sought to be made available for being compared with the signature found in the disputed documents were not contemporary and that they were not suitable for being compared to give an effective opinion regarding the signature found in the disputed documents. Suppose the learned Rent Controller had stopped with that and directed the revision petitioners to produce more authenticated document containing the admitted signatures, this Court would not have find fault with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. But the learned Rent Controller has chosen to give a finding regarding the document which was referred to as Ex.P1, namely a lease deed as one that could have been created for the purpose of disproving the disputed documents. But the learned Rent Controller has chosen to give a finding regarding the document which was referred to as Ex.P1, namely a lease deed as one that could have been created for the purpose of disproving the disputed documents. The learned Rent Controller, after making an observation that the signatures sought to be used for comparison were not contemporary signatures or the signatures subscribed before the dispute arose, chose to make a further observation that a comparison of the signatures found in Ex.P1 produced by the petitioners for the purpose of comparison and the signatures obtained in the Court and also the signatures found in the vakalat and the affidavits filed in M.P.No.14 of 2010, 15 of 2010, 101 of 2010 and 102 of 2010 would show that the third petitioner Nizamudeen was not in the habit of subscribing his signature in only one form. Such an observation is uncalled for and unwarranted. By making such an observation, the learned Rent Controller has chosen to express a view regarding the genuineness of the document sought to be relied on by the respondent, which ought not to have been done. 6. In view of the above said discussions, this Court is of the view that the order of the learned Rent Controller impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be set aside. However, in stead of simply dismissing the petition I.A.No.331 of 2008 on the ground that the petitioners had not produced reliable documents containing the admitted signatures for being compared with the disputed signatures, the said petition can be dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to file similar petition if they are in a position to produce contemporary documents or documents prior to the documents containing the signature of the third petitioner for being compared with the signatures found in the disputed documents. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is and the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 12.09.2011 made I.A.No.331 of 2008 is set aside. No costs.