Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. Mehrotra, J.
KASHFUL HUDA - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (COURT NO. 2) - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 45335 Of 2002
Decided On : 10/28/2002
ATUL DAYAL, I.M.Khan, M.A.SIDDIQUE, N.C.RAJVANSHI, RAVI KIRAN JAIN
The court emphasized the importance of comparing disputed signatures with admitted signatures to determine their genuineness, as provided under Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:FORGED RECEIPTS - TENANCY DISPUTE - U.P. ACT NO. XIII OF 1972, SECTION 20 (2) (a), (b), (c), (e) - The court considered the question of whether the rent receipts filed by the petitioner were forged. The court examined the reports of handwriting experts and the statements of the experts, as well as other relevant facts and circumstances. The court concluded that the signatures on the rent receipts were forged. The court also found that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of rent and was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The court held that the petitioner was liable for eviction based on the grounds of default and material alteration of the accommodation. The court dismissed the writ petition and granted the petitioner time to vacate the accommodation, subject to certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of judgments and orders passed by the lower courts in a tenancy dispute. The dispute involved allegations of default in rent payment, subletting, and material alteration of the accommodation.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rent receipts filed by the petitioner were forged based on the reports of handwriting experts and other evidence. The court also found that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of rent and was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act.Ratio Decidendi:
The court relied on the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, specifically Sections 45, 47, and 73, to determine the genuineness of the signatures on the rent receipts. The court held that the comparison of signatures by the court itself is one of the means to satisfy itself regarding the genuineness of a particular signature. Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and granted the petitioner time to vacate the accommodation, subject to certain conditions.( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, inter alia, seeking quashing of the Judgment and order dated 8. 8. 2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 2) Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 1) and the judgment and order dated 6. 9. 2000 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)passed by the learned IInd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No, 2 ).
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to an accommodation on the ground floor in House No. 94/118 (old) and 94/118a (new), Pech Bagh, Kanpur Nagar. The said accommodation has, hereinafter, been referred to as the disputed accommodation.
( 3 ) FROM the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a suit against the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner was the tenant of the plaintiff/respondent No. 3 in respect of the disputed accommodation ; and that the petitioner defaulted in the payment of arrears of rent and taxes since 1. 12. 1983 ; and that the petitioner also wilfully damaged the tenanted portion, altered it, diminished its value, and also disfigured it and sub-let it to Mohd. Zaheer ; and that a notice dated 3. 1. 1988, was given by the respondent No. 3 through Sri Chhotey Lal, advocate to the petitioner by registered post ; and that the petitioner committed breach of Section 20 (2) (a), (b) and (c) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short the Act) ; and that having committed default in payment of arrears of rent from 1. 12. 1983 to 31. 12. 1987 for 49 months, at the rate of Rs. 200 per month amounting to Rs. 16,087. 50 by 14. 2. 1988, the petitioner became defaulter.
( 4 ) IT was, inter alia, further alleged by the respondent No. 3 In the said suit that the petitioner had also committed breach of the provisions of Section 20 (2) (b) and (c; of the Act because he altered the entire accommodation by converting it into one godown and an office along with latrine and bath and that the entire tenanted portion stood disfigured.
( 5 ) IT was, inter alia, further alleged by the respondent No. 3 in the suit that the petitioner committed breach of Section 20 (2) (e) of the Act by subletting the entire tenanted portion to Sri mohd. Zaheer.
( 6 ) THE said suit filed by the respondent No. 3 was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 50 of 1988. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
( 7 ) THE petitioner contested the said suit and filed written statement, It was, inter alia, alleged by the petitioner that the rent had been paid upto 31. 3. 1988 ; and that the petitioner never became a defaulter ; and that the petitioner was not liable to pay any water tax ; and that the rent included the water tax ; and that the petitioner had not converted or made any alteration as alleged by the respondent No. 3 ; and that there had not been any diminution of the utility or disfigurement of the accommodation in question ; and that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act ; and that the petitioner had not sub-let or parted with the possession of the disputed accommodation to any one. A copy of the written statement has been filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition.
( 8 ) EVIDENCE was led by both the sides in the suit.
( 9 ) THE learned IInd Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 2), by his judgment and order dated 6. 9. 2000, decreed the said suit filed by the respondent No. 3. It was, inter alia, held by the respondent No. 2 on issue No. 1 that the alleged rent receipts filed on behalf of the petitioner showing the alleged payment of rent upto 31. 3. 1988 were forged receipts. It was, inter alia, further held by the respondent No. 2 that on the first date of hearing of the suit i. e. , 12. 5. 1988, the petitioner only deposited Rs. 3,000 while the rent for the period from 1. 12. 1983 to 12. 5. 1988, i. e. , about 51 months came t
