The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to prove disputed signatures under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act and the relevance of the evidence, emphasizing that the competence of a witness should be assessed after their evidence is recorded.

A.M. Babu, J.

1. Landlady filed R.C.P. 99/2013 before the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad against tenant and sub-tenants. The proceedings reached the final hearing stage. Arrears of rent and sub-lease are the two grounds alleged in the rent control petition. A copy of the petition is Ext P1.

2. Petitioners herein are the sub-tenants. Respondent is the landlady. The tenant is not made a party in this original petition. Petitioners do not dispute the sub-lease. They contend the sub-lease to be not objectionable. They say that it was with the consent of the landlady the sub-lease was made. Ext P2 is a copy of the counter-statement filed by the sub-tenants in the rent control proceedings.

3. The power of attorney holder of the landlady was examined as PW1. The sub-tenants produced a few rent receipts purported to have been issued to them by PW1. PW1 denied the signatures in those rent receipts. Therefore the sub-tenants filed three interlocutory applications, namely, (i) I.A 10064/2016, (ii) I.A 10065/2016 and (iii) I.A 10066/2016. Copies of those applications are Exts P3, P4 and P5 respectively.

4. I.A 10064/2016 was filed to get the evidence re-opened. The evidence was sought to be re-opened to examine one more witness. I.A 10065/2016 was filed requesting to receive witness list after condoning the delay in filing it. The witness is stated to be the tenant of a room in the same building. His examination was sought in order to prove the disputed signatures in the disputed rent receipts. I.A 10066/2016 was filed requesting to issue summons to the said witness.

5. The Rent Control Court dismissed all the applications. The orders in I.A 10064/2016, I.A 10065/2016 and I.A 10066/2016 are Exts P6, P7 and P8 respectively. Two reasons are stated to dismiss those applications. First, the competence of the witness to prove the disputed fact was not shown to the satisfaction of the court. Second, the fact proposed to be proved would have no relevance as the disputed receipts were issued in the name of the tenant.

6. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Perused Exts P1 to P8.

7. Petitioners herein are admittedly sub-tenants. They say that the sub-lease was not objectionable. According to them, it was with the consent of the landlady the building was sub-let. In order to prove their case, the sub-tenants produced a few rent receipts. They allege that those receipts were signed and issued by PW1 as the power of attorney holder of the landlady. PW1 denied the signatures in those receipts to be his. Therefore, the sub-tenants sought for the examination of a witness to prove the disputed signatures to be those of PW1. Should the sub-tenants be denied such an opportunity is the question.

8. Sub-tenants are certainly not necessary parties in a rent control proceedings between the landlady and the tenant. It is so even in cases where sub-lease is taken as a ground for eviction. But if they are made parties to the proceedings, they are entitled to contest and produce evidence as every party in any litigation could do.

9. The Rent Control Court said that it was not satisfied of the competence of the proposed witness to prove the disputed fact. That was one reason why the Rent Control Court dismissed the applications. The sub-tenants wanted to examine the witness to prove that the signatures in the disputed receipts belonged to PW1. The sub-tenants chose a tenant of the same building to prove the disputed signatures. He was chosen perhaps he might have received rent receipts signed by PW1. The competence of a witness to prove a fact is normally a matter to be decided after reading his evidence and not before his examination unless his incompetence is so patent.

10. Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus:-

"If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by a person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriti