- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) LANDLORDS respondents filed suit for eviction against tenant petitioner in the from of S. C. C. Suit No. 494 of 1999, Santosh Gupta and others v. Munshi lal. Relief of eviction was sought on the ground of default and recovery of ar rears of rent was also prayed for. Property in dispute is situate in Kanpur Nagar and contains two rooms, verandah, common latrine, courtyard and bath room on the ground floor. Rate of rent is Rs. 200/- per month. LANDLORDS respon dents stated that 30% water tax and 10% sewer tax was also payable by the tenant, however tenant denied the said liability. J. S. C. C. , Kanpur Nagar found that the tenant's version, that he had paid rent till 31. 12. 1997, was not proved (landlords had asserted that rent had not been paid since 1. 10. 1996 ). Suit was decreed by J. S. C. C. Kanpur Nagar through judgment and decree dated 19. 8. 2006. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, tenant petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision No. 48 of 2006. In the-revision, tenant filed an application for adducing additional evidence, which has been rejected by order dated 21. 5. 2008. Said order has been challenged through this writ petition. Before the Trial Court, tenant had filed some receipt and had applied for getting expert opinion on the disputed signatures of the landlords (landlord had denied the signatures on the receipt ). The Trial Court allowed the application of the tenant, still tenant did not examine any expert. Application before the Revisional Court was given for fresh permission to obtain expert opinion on the disputed signatures. Through impugned order, Revisional Court/a. D. J. , Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar rejected the said application. In my opinion, Lower Revisional Court rightly rejected the said appli cation. Absolutely, no reason for not examining the expert before the Trial Court was given. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dis missed.
(3.) IT is further directed that until decision of the revision eviction of the tenant petitioner shall remain stayed on the conditions that he deposits the entire decreetal amount before the Trial Court within six weeks and deposits rent/damages for use and occupation of the property in dispute @ Rs. 750/- per month from August, 2008 onwards by 7th of each succeeding month before the Lower Revisional Court for immediate payment to the landlord. This direction is being issued in view of the Supreme Court authority of Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors, 2005 (58) ALR 650 (SC) = 2005 (26) AIC 84.;