MD MAKSUD ALAM Vs. RAJESH JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dismissal of the applications, for sending Ext.1 series which are the rent receipts produced by the plaintiff for forensic examination of the signature allegedly put by the defendant on the back of those rent receipts, by orders dated 14.02.2012 and 02.05.2014 has compelled the defendant to approach this Court.

(2.) Title (E) Suit No.6 of 2008 was instituted for ejection of the petitioner from the tenanted premises on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff and default in payment of rent. A decree for recovery of Rs.37,200/ as arrears of rent is also a relief sought by the plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement specifically denying tenancy under the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff has received monthly rent from M/s Cheap Shoes Corner on different dates. The plaintiff produced 26 rent receipts which were marked as Exhibits1 & 1/a to 1/y during his examination as PW1. These rent receipts were marked with objection from the defendant. After the examination of PW1 the defendant filed an application on 29.08.2011 for sending the rent receipts for comparing signature on the back of these rent receipts with his admitted signature on the written statement, Vakalatnama or with his fresh signature. This application was opposed by the plaintiff pleading that mere filing of rent receipts is not a proof in itself on payment of rent by the defendant to the plaintiff. The trial Judge has noticed the objection by the plaintiff to the application dated 29.08.2011 in these words "...... because the burden of proof of payment of rent always lie (sic lies) upon the tenant. Mere denial of the signature of the defendant on the counterfoil of the rent receipt will not ipso facto proof (sic prove) the payment of rent to the plaintiff by the defendant. The defendant will get an opportunity at the time of evidence to prove this (sic his) case". This application was dismissed on the ground that it was premature. After the defendant's evidence was closed, he again filed an application on 21.11.2013 with a similar prayer. Still, this application has been dismissed on the ground that any order on such application would be a hurdle in disposal of the suit within time.

(3.) The suit has been instituted for ejection of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff and default in payment of rent. In his crossexamination the plaintiff has admitted that there is no date on the back of the rent receipt. Mrs. Vandana Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in his examinationinchief the plaintiff has not claimed that the defendant has put his signature on the rent receipts in presence of any other witness. Application dated 29.08.2011 was dismissed on the ground that it was premature and a similar application filed on 21.11.2013 has been dismissed observing that this would be a hurdle in disposal of the suit. Evidently, approach of the learned Judge was erroneous. He has failed to consider relevance of comparing the signature of the defendant with his admitted signature in the light of evidence of the parties. As noticed above, the plaintiff in his crossexamination has admitted that the defendant has never put a date on the rent receipts whereas, the defendant who has been examined as DW5 has specifically denied that the plaintiff has ever issued any rent receipt to him. In his crossexamination the defendant has denied his signature on the counterfoil of the rent receipts. Now, in this state of evidence genuineness of the signature of the defendant on the rent receipts would assume significance. It would definitely assist the court in coming to a correct conclusion.