M.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 10.10.1996 passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Jhansi decreeing the suit No. 70 of 1989 for ejectment of the petitioner and the judgment dated 21.1.1998 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jhansi dismissing the petitioner's revision petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri K.P. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who contends that the evidence about the rate of rent and the extent of arrest has not been properly appraised. It is contended that the evidence contained in the counterfoil of the receipt was not admissible and no expert was examined to prove the signature of the petitioner Kanhiya Lal. I have been taken through the judgment of the Courts below. One of the disputes was about the rate of rent, i.e. where it was Rs.20 per month as alleged by the landlord respondent, Rs.2.50 per month as alleged by the tenant. This is a question of fact and the Judge, Small Causes taking into account the evidence of P.W. 1, Anees Ahmad has come to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs.30 per month. It appears that the counterfoil had the signature of the petitioner Kanhiya Lal. Therefore reliance on Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra, AIR 1982 SC 127 , is no help as the facts were different.
(3.) As regards the contention that the plaintiffs did not produce any expert to prove the signature of Kanhiya Lal, in my view it is not necessary in every case to produce handwriting expert. If the petitioner thought that the evidence of an expert would help him he could have himself examined one.;