Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. This is tenants’ writ petition. Original landlord Lakshman Das filed suit for eviction against original tenant Bengali Ram in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 828 of 1984. Property in dispute is stated to be a house containing one room, one kitchen, one tin shed and other amenities Rent is only Rs. 16/- per month. The matter was several times remanded by the revisional Court. Once the tenant was also dispossessed. Thereafter possession was restored. Both the original landlord and the original tenant have died and are survived by their legal representatives.

3. The first point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is regarding the service of notice. Original tenant Bengali Ram was himself an employee of Postal Department, hence it was almost impossible for any postman to give false report regarding service. Notice was served through registered post. There is always presumption of service through registered post.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next argued that the alleged signatures of the original tenant on the Acknowledgement Due (A.D.) accompanying registered notice, were compared by the Court himself, which was not permissible under the law. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in State v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 S.C. 14 to contend that Judge can not play the role of Expert and compare the admitted signature with the disputed one. In the said authority, the only thing which has been stated, is that comparison of signatures may be made by a handwriting expert (Section 45) or by one familiar with the hand-writing of the person concerned (Section 47) or by the Court (Paras-24 & 25). Thereafter, in Para 29, it was further held that there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare disputed hand-writing with the admitted hand-writing. However, without the aid of the evidence of any hand-writing expert, the Judge should as a matter of prudence and caution hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a hand-writing, which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person caused of an offence solely on comparison made by himself. In this regard, some later authorities of the Supreme Court may also be noticed, which are reported in :

1. AIR 1980 SC 531 “Murarilal v. State of M.P.”

2. AIR 1997 SC 3255 “Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka”

3. AIR 1999 SC 2544 “K.S. Satyanarayana v. V. R. Narayana Rao”

4. AIR 2003 SC 1796 “Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank”

5. In the fourth authority, reliance was placed upon the first authority and it was held in Para-13 that :

“It is clear that even when experts’ evidence is not there, Court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter.”

6. In the third authority, it was held that trial Court should have also compared the hand-writings as provided in Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

7. In the second authority, reliance was placed upon State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14 (supra) and it was held in Para-38 that :

“As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Act.”

8. In the said authority Supreme Court Judges, themselves compared the signatures and mentioned in Para 39 as follows :

“We have already recorded above that on the comparison of the signature in the “Register of Lodgers” with the appellant’s signature on the “Vakalatnama”, we have not found any dissimilarity and are convinced that the appellant himself had signed the “Register of Lodgers”.

9. Even the tenants-petitioners, who are legal re