Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1999 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar v. Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur

2015-12-02

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT: Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 29.10.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City in Rent Case No. 464/12, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner u/s 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stands rejected. 2. The second respondent herein preferred a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises, a shop, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, stating that the rent for the period 1.4.07 to 31.3.08, a sum of Rs.15,420/- was paid by him to the respondent vide receipt no. 1 dated 15.4.08. The petitioner averred that the respondent has denied to have received the rent as aforesaid and has taken the stand that the receipt produced by the petitioner is forged and therefore, the receipt produced deserves to be sent for FSL examination. 4. After due consideration, the application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner and refusing to send the receipt produced by him for FSL examination, the Rent Tribunal has proceeded to record the finding that if the signature on the receipt produced by the petitioner are compared with the signature on the receipt no. 65 and 66 produced by the respondent, which are not in dispute, it is apparent that the signature on the receipt produced by the petitioner does not tally with the signature on the receipts produced by the respondent, genuineness whereof is not in dispute. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to make submissions in this regard and thus, the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal comparing the signature as aforesaid at the stage of disposal of the application preferred by the petitioner, is absolutely perverse. Learned counsel submitted that obviously, the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal shall come in way of the petitioner at the time of final arguments in the matter and therefore, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid while passing the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel submitted that obviously, the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal shall come in way of the petitioner at the time of final arguments in the matter and therefore, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid while passing the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the respondent present in person, submitted that the Rent Tribunal has recorded the finding after comparing the signature on the receipt produced by the petitioner with the admitted signature of the respondent on the receipts produced by him, genuineness whereof is not in dispute and therefore, the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 7. It is to be noticed that evidence of hand writing expert is not conclusive and cannot be relied upon without independent and reliable corroboration. It is not the law that the court is under an obligation to refer a document for opinion of the hand writing expert on mere asking of party to the proceedings. The signature on the document produced in evidence can always be compared by the court with the admitted signature on record and thus, the discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal in refusing to refer the document for FSL examination, does not warrant interference by this court. But then, at this stage, when the application preferred by the petitioner for reference of the document to FSL was being considered, there was no occasion for the Rent Tribunal to record the finding by comparing the signature on the receipt produced by the petitioner with the signature on other receipts produced on record by the respondent. The petitioner shall be well within his right in making submission in this regard during course of final hearing and therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, while disposing of the application preferred by the petitioner, the Rent Tribunal has erred in recording the categorical finding that the signature on the receipt produced by the petitioner does not tally with admitted signatures on other receipts produced by the respondent. 8. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the document for FSL examination, is not interfered with. 8. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the document for FSL examination, is not interfered with. However, it is directed that the Rent Tribunal shall decide the issue with regard to the genuineness of the receipt produced by the petitioner after due consideration of the rival submissions to be made by the parties, at the time of final arguments, uninfluenced by the finding recorded as aforesaid while passing the order impugned. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.