SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This petition is directed against order dated 27.10.16 whereby an application preferred by the petitioner to obtain the report of the expert regarding the signature of the respondent herein on a receipt for Rs.2,25,000/- executed towards the security deposit given by the petitioner, has been rejected.
(2.) The respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. The petitioner has taken the stand in the reply that he had given a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the respondent as premium in respect whereof a receipt was executed by the respondent in his favour. The respondent by filing a rejoinder to the reply denied the factum of premium being received as also the execution of the receipt placed on record by the petitioner. In the cross examination also, the respondent denied his signature on the receipt. The evidence of the parties stand completed and the matter is posted for final arguments. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application to obtain the report of the handwriting expert in respect of the signature of the respondent on the receipt alleged to have been executed by him against the amount of premium given. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred stating that the same has been filed so as to protract the litigation. Learned counsel submitted that matter with regard to the necessity of the report of the handwriting expert has not been examined by the Rent Tribunal and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law.;