Samapti Chatterjee, J. - (1.) THE petitioner/defendant No. 3 filed the present revisional application assailing the order No. 81 dated 16th February, 2015 passed by the Learned Judge, 3rd Bench, Small Causes court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 119 of 2005.
(2.) THE defendant No. 3/petitioner's case in brief is as follows: - That the present suit for eviction has been initiated by the plaintiff/opposite party against his predecessor -in -interest namely Sri Kalipada Saha for eviction and recovery of Khas possession of the suit premises. It was also mentioned in the said suit that the said Kalipada Saha, since deceased was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit premises in June, 1985 at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/ - payable as per english calendar month. It also appears that plaintiff/opposite party in the suit has claimed the monthly rent to be Rs. 550/ - instead of Rs. 125/ - and for establishing the same in proceedings under Section 7(2) of WBPT Act, 1997 the plaintiff/opposite party produced some documents bearing the signature of Kalipada Saha and his defendant/plaintiff which has been marked as Exbt. C, D and E. The plaintiff/opposite party categorically denied that rent has ever been enhanced from Rs. 125/ - to Rs. 550/ -. It was also the case of defendant/petitioner that the signature of the defendant No. 3 or of Kalipada Saha on the said documents marked as Exbt.C, D and E are not at all genuine. On the basis of that the defendant No. 3/petitioner filed an application praying for appointment of handwriting expert at his own cost for comparison of the signature of Kalipada Saha on Exbt.C with admitted signature on Exbt.A and for comparison of the disputed signature of the defendant/petitioner on Exbt.D and E with his admitted signature on deposition sheet. The plaintiff/opposite party by filing written objection on 28th February, 2014 challenged the maintainability of the petition for appointment of handwriting expert and the plaintiff/opposite party contended in the written objection that it is merely an attempt on the part of the defendant to drag and delay the matter. The said application for appointment of handwriting expert was rejected by the Learned Court below. Challenging the same the defendant No. 3/petitioner filed a revisional application being C.O No. 2247 of 2014 before this Hon'ble court which was ultimately dismissed by this Hon'ble court vide Order dated 16th July, 2014. At the time of dismissal of the said revisional application the Hon'ble Court held as follows: - "Those documents are relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the rate of rent and not otherwise. The jural relationship of the landlord and tenant is not in dispute and, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality and/or infirmity in rejecting the said application. However, this Court must record that the Trial Court shall consider the admissibility of those documents at the time of considering an application under Section 7(2) of the said Act and in the event, the Court finds that the rate of rent as claimed by the plaintiff/opposite party is correct, shall permit the petitioner to deposit the same in Court." Thereafter the said application under Section 7(2) of WBPT Act, was allowed by the Order No. 81 dated 16th February, 2015 passed by the Learned 3rd Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 119 of 2005 with the following orders: - "That the petition under Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act stands disposed of on contest without any order as to cost. Till date, the defendants are found to be a defaulter in payment of rent for only 134 months being December, 2003 till January, 2015. At the adjudicated rate of Rs. 550/ -, arrear rent for 134 month arrives at Rs. 73700/ -. Statutory interest @ 10% stands at Rs. 7370/ -. Thus, an amount of Rs. 81070/ - (73700 + 7370) is found to be due and payable by the defendants towards arrear rent with interest. They directed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 81070/ - in Court within a period of one month from the date of this order. The defendants are further instructed to go on depositing the current month by month rent in Court from February, 2015 onwards within the time prescribed u/s 7(1)(C) WBPT Act, i.e. by the 15th day of each succeeding English Calendar month at the rate of Rs. 550/ - p.m. Let me reiterate that the findings regarding the rate of rent is tentative and the plaintiff shall not be allowed to withdraw the rent if any deposited in Court at that rate, till disposal of the Suit. Fix 10.4.15 for framing of issues (including one regarding the dispute relating to rate of rent)." Challenging the same, the defendant No. 3/petitioner filed the present revisional application. Mr. Anit Kr. Rakshit, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No. 3/petitioer submits that at the time of allowing the petition under Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, the Learned Judge erred in law by holding "In this case,, signatures of Kalipada Saha in Exbt.A (admitted) and Exbt. C (disputed) appeared to the naked eye are similar and almost identical".
(3.) MR . Rakshit vehemently urged that it is crystal clear that Learned Judge was not at all sure about the genuineness of the signature in Exbt. A and Exbt.C. That is why on the basis of apprehension Learned Judge came to the conclusion that the signature of Kalipada Saha in Exbt.A (admitted) and Exbt.C (disputed) are similar and almost identical which clearly shows that he was not 100 % confident or satisfied that the signature on both the documents are similar and identical.;