PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. HARDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed dated 21.07.2015, the application moved by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence has since been declined by the Rent Controller, Fatehgarh Sahib.

(2.) In an application moved by the petitioner, it was maintained that vide additional evidence, that was sought to be produced, petitioner intends to examine Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert and prove his report. In fact, respondents had relied upon the rent note dated 11.10.2001, to claim that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant pursuant thereto. But the rent note, dated 11.10.2001, does not bear the signature of Narinder Kaur i.e. predecessorin-interest of the respondents-landlord. And in a suit filed by her i.e. Narinder Kaur v. Parveen Kumar, Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert, was examined and the report submitted by him substantiates this position.

(3.) In response, it was pleaded that the rent note dated 11.10.2001 was validly executed by Narinder Kaur i.e. grandmother of the respondents. And petitioner had even been tendering rent in the said suit. Therefore, acknowledged himself to be the tenant under Narinder Kaur.