ABID ALI MIRZA Vs. MIR SYED ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision petitioner is the tenant. The landlord was successful in getting an order of eviction in R.C. No. 224/86 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and in R.A. No. 264/93 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad. But however in C.R.P. No. 3119/95 on the ground that the trial Court recorded a finding that the signatures appear to be different on each of the documents it was observed that it would be desirable that in the event of slightest doubt the matter be left to the wisdom of experts. Accordingly the said Civil Revision Petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. After the order of remand was made, the hand-writing expert was examined and Exs. C-1 to C-7 were marked. The learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that already there is a finding relating to the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and in the light of the order of remand and taking into consideration the denial of signatures by tenant on Exs. P-2 and P-11 and certain other documents and on appreciation of the evidence of expert P.W.4 and Exs.C-1 to C-7, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant had been established and the tenant also committed default in payment of rent from September 1984 to August 1986 wilfully and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller again the matter was carried by way of Appeal R.A. No. 54/2000 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the learned appellate Court dismissed the Appeal confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) SRI Srinivas, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner/tenant would contend that the order of remand was made since the comparison of signatures would be very essential and this would have some bearing on the question of landlord and tenant relationship also. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by both the Courts below, the direction issued while making the order of remand in the prior Civil Revision Petition and also the evidence of P.W-4 and would comment that in the cross-examination this witness admitted that he is not conversant with the language of the questioned documents which are in Urdu and hence, the purpose for which the order of remand had been made had not been complied with in its true letter and spirit. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions on the aspect of who an expert is and further placed reliance on certain decisions that even when concurrent findings are recorded in a Rent Control proceeding, the Revisional Court within certain permissible limits can definitely interfere.

(3.) HEARD the Counsel.