The main legal point established in the judgment is the caution required in considering expert opinion, the need for corroboration with other evidence, and the limited scope of judicial review by the Revisional Court.

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar Singh, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Madan Mohan, Advocate, for respondents.

2. This Writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.1.1997 passed by District Judge, Hamirpur allowing S.C.C. Revision No. 1 of 1996 of respondents no. 3; while setting aside Trial Court's order dated 23.5.1996 which has decreed the suit. It had directed for eviction of petitioner-tenant from the premises in question.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that rent was paid by tenant regularly and every month and all the receipts were produced before the Court below but Revisional Court has discarded all these receipts as forged and fictitious without considering the evidence of petitioner and, therefore, has erred in law while exercising revisional power. He submitted that on factual aspects, Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to interfere and, therefore, impugned revisional order is clearly illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that Handwriting Experts' opinions was submitted by both the sides and the same were rejected by Revisional Court but in that circumstance either he himself should have examined the documents and recorded its own findings or should have remanded the matter but instead he has decided the issue without recording any finding and, therefore, the revisional order is illegal and liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Srichand K. Khetwani Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 450, Fakhruddin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326, The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram (1979) 2 SCC 158, Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 SCC (Cri) 330, Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and others (2003) 3 SCC 583 and this Court's decision in Kashful Huda Vs. Addl. District Judge (Court No. 2) Kanpur Nagar and others 2003 (1) ARC 125, Laxmi Shanker and others Vs. Shyam Lal 2006 (3) AWC 2723, Mohd. Ibrahim alias Munna Vs. Mohd. Ahmed 2007 (1) AWC 368 and Ramji Pandey Vs. Rameshwar Mali and another 2008 (1) ARC 720.

5. Having given my anxious thoughts to the submissions advanced and authorities cited above, I find no substance therein.

6. It is evident from the record that several receipts were relied and placed by petitioner to prove that rent was paid month by month regularly but the same were not admitted by landlord and he claimed that receipts are forged. Since landlord had denied to have issued receipts relied by petitioner, the burden lies upon petitioner to prove genuity and correctness of those receipts. It appears that to prove signatures of respondent-landlord, petitioner relied on Handwriting Experts' report but an otherwise report of another Handwriting Expert was submitted by landlord also.

7. The Revisional Court had referred to the Handwriting Expert, Sri V.C. Mishra, D.W. 4's report relied by petitioner-tenant and has observed that the said Expert himself found differences in the writing and signatures on the receipts produced by petitioner-tenant before the Court below and the writing and signature supplied by landlord for comparison but despite pointing out those differences, he (the Expert) ultimately concluded in favour of tenant i.e. the party who has required him (the Expert) to submit the report and for that purpose the Revisional Court has observed that this conduct of Handwriting Expert appears to be influenced for the remuneration he must have received from tenant. The relevant findings are as under:

"The handwriting expert D.W. 4 Sri V.C. Misra though observed differences in the admitted writing and signatures and disputed writing and signatures but gave report and evidence in favour of defendant perhaps because he was paid for it."

8. On behalf of landlord-respondent, Sri Rajendra Prasad, D.W. 1 was Handwriting Expert who also noticed some similarity in writing and signatures but gave report in favour of landlord. The Court below, therefore, discarded both op