The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all material evidence, including conflicting expert opinions, and establishing the identification of the signatory in a rent agreement dispute.

Pankaj Mithal, J. –

The judgement and order dated 18.05.2016 and the consequential decree thereof passed by the District Judge in exercise of powers of Small Causes Court is for revision at the behest of the defendant.

2. The plaintiff-respondent purchased the shop in question no. 1038/6 situate in Mohallah Police Chauki, Meerut Gate Hapur, vide sale deed dated 10.06.2013 from its previous owner Anand Kumar. The defendant-revisionist was in occupation of the said shop from the time of the previous owner. The plaintiff-respondent after purchasing it, instituted a small causes court suit claiming arrears of rent for the period 10.06.2013 to 30.11.2014 alleging that the rent of the shop w.e.f. 10.10.2013 as per the mutual agreement was fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per month and the defendant-revisionist had defaulted in its payment.

3. The court below on the basis of agreement of settlement dated 10.10.2013 returned a finding that the rent agreed was Rs. 3,500/- per month and since the defendant-revisionist had not deposited the rent on the said rate, he had defaulted in its payment and is liable for eviction. Thus, the said suit has been decreed.

4. I have heard Sri Anoop Trivedi learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri K.K. Arora learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent.

5. Sri Anoop Trivedi argued that the court below has erred in holding the rent of the shop in dispute to be Rs. 3,500/- per month w.e.f. 10.06.2013 on the basis of the agreement dated 10.10.2013 and the defendant-revisionist to be a defaulter in payment of its rent at the above rate. The agreement dated 10.10.2013 is a fake document which do not bears the signatures of the defendant-revisionist. The finding regarding the aforesaid agreement and the rate of the rent recorded by the court below on its basis is perverse as the material evidence on record in that regard has not been considered.

6. Sri K.K. Arora, on the other hand, contends that the defendant-revisionist may be paying rent Rs. 850/- per month to the previous owner but after the shop was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent, vide agreement dated 10.10.2013, the defendant-revisionist had agreed to enhance the rent to Rs. 3,500/- per month w.e.f. 10.06.2013 and to vacate it within a period of one year.

7. In view of the respective contention aforesaid, counsel for the parties agreed that the main question arising in this revision is with regard to the rate of the rent and the validity of the agreement dated 10.10.2013.

8. The trial court framed as many as 8 issues in the suit, wherein issue no. 3 and 8 were with regard to the agreement dated 10.10.2013, rate of rent and default in payment of rent w.e.f. 10.06.2013 if any.

9. The above two issues were decided together by the court below. The court held that the plaintiff-respondent as P.W.1, Rajesh Kumar P.W. 2, Ishwarchand P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 Nitin Agrawal as also the Court Witness Lokesh Kumar proved the above agreement (Paper No. 10 Ga). The signatures of the defendant-revisionist on it were held to be proved by the report of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert Ajay Mohan Paliwal and also on the personal examination by the Presiding Officer of the signatures of the defendant-revisionist on the said agreement with his admitted signatures. The report of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert of the defendant-revisionist was discarded.

10. The handwriting & fingerprint expert of the defendant-revisionist had the decree of B.A. L.L.B., but no specialised knowledge of handwriting and fingerprint from any training institute or university. Therefore his report which stated the agreement does not bear the signatures of the defendant revisionist was discarded.

11. The report of Ajay Mohan Paliwal, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert was accepted as he had received some technical education in the field from American Institute of Applied Sciences, Delhi, in the Laboratory of Senior Expert Sri S.S. Kapoor. However, no evidence and material is