The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997 to a tenancy created 30 years prior and the interpretation of Section 3(c) and Section 90 of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 in determining the validity of a registered lease deed.

JUDGMENT

Kesang Doma Bhutia, J. - Being aggrieved by the order allowing opposite party's applications under Section 7 (1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997 by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Kolkata in Title Suit no. 856 of 2021 on 16.11.21, the land lords/petitioners have filed the present application under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revisional application in gist is that the petitioners/plaintiffs/landlords have filed Title Suit No. 856 of 2021 for eviction of the opposite party from the disputed shop room on determination of registered lease deed of 30 years.

3. It has been alleged by learned lawyer for petitioners that they never filed the eviction suit against the opposite party under West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997, but surprisingly the opposite party with ulterior motive has filed applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997 and which were allowed vide impugned order with the observation the execution and genuineness of registered lease deed produced before it by the landlords would be considered at the time of trial.

4. Further, it has been contended that petitioners have filed the eviction suit against a trespasser and without invoking any of grounds mentioned in the section 6 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997. The learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 3(c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997 and allowed those applications filed by the opposite party treating him as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property.

5. Perused the copy of the plaint of Title Suit No. 856 of 2021 from where it appears the plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of khas possession of the disputed tenanted shop room by efflux of time of registered lease deed dated 8.04.1989 with damage and mense profit. It has been averted that tenancy in favour of the opposite party was created on the basis of a registered/lease executed on 08.04.1989 for a period of 30 years. That on expiry of lease period of 30 years, the petitioners have requested the opposite party to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the tenanted shop room but he has refused to do so and as such plaintiffs/landlords served notice on the opposite party on 28.01.2019, but he continued to remain in possession.

6. From the copy of lease deed it appears the same to be a registered lease deed and duly executed in between Kanai Lal Dey and Pradip Kumar Basak on 08.04.89. I find signatures of both lessee and lessor on lease deed and that of lessor Kanai Lal Dey on each and every page of the deed along with the signatures of witnesses namely Nityananda Basak and Tapas Basak an advocate of City Civil Court. Then it is not known how the learned Court below found only the signature of Pradip Kumar Basak on the last page of the deed.

7. It is true that Court is presumed to be experts expert but Court is not a handwriting expert as it needs to be examined by an expert a specially skilled person. In case, if any, signature appearing on any document under challenge is disputed, the court normally call for the document which bear the admitted signature or obtain specimen signature of the person challenging the signature appearing on disputed document in open court and send those documents containing both admitted and disputed signatures to Hand Writing expert for examination. Surprisingly, the learned Court below without help of an expert had come to the conclusion that signature appearing on the lease deed is not that Pradip Kumar Brasak, the opposite party.

8. Further, this court finds the learned court below has overlooked section 90 of the Indian Evidence act,1872 and wrongly observed that 30 years old registered lease deed need to be proved at the time of trial.

9. Section 90 of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 provides; Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is pr