- (1.) Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 20.04.2019 whereby, the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-non-applicant under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent-applicant filed an eviction application in the year 2015 against the petitioner on the grounds of bonafide necessity, default in payment of rent and nuisance. In the reply filed by the petitioner to the application, he relied upon an agreement to sell dated 22.09.2015 allegedly executed by the respondent in his favour and a rent receipt dated 10.03.2003 to show rate of rent to be Rs. 500/- per month instead of Rs. 3,200/- per month as claimed by the respondent. The respondent in his rejoinder filed on 07.04.2016, categorically denied execution of any agreement to sell dated 22.09.2015 in favour of the petitioner as well as execution of the rent receipt dated 10.03.2003 and claimed both to be forged. After closure of the respondent's evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Act of 1872 praying therein to subject the signature and thumb impression alleging the same to be of the respondent on the receipt dated 10.03.2003 and the agreement dated 22.09.2015 respectively to forensic science examination. The learned Rent Tribunal has, vide order impugned herein dated 20.04.2019, dismissed the application.
(3.) Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Rent Tribunal erred in dismissing the application on account of delay in as much as he has filed the application immediately after completion of cross examination of the respondent; wherein, he categorically denied his signature/thumb impression on the documents in question. He submits, therefore, the application could not have been held to be suffering from any delay. He further contends that it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Tribunal to have sent the documents in question for forensic science examination once there was positive assertion by him as to signature/thumb impression of the respondent on the documents and its denial by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments to buttress his submissions:- (1) Thiruvengada Pillai versus Navaneethammal and Anr., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1541. (2) Velaga Sivarama Krishna versus Velaga Veerabhadra Rao and Anr., AIR 2009 Andhra Pradesh 47. (3) Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad versus Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Ors., AIR 2016 Hyderabad 118 (Full Bench). (4) Guru Govindu Versus Devarapu Venkataramana, AIR 2006 AP371.;