WPMS No.1578 of 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. L. P. Naithani, the learned senior counsel for the respondent. The tenant during the pendency of the release application filed an application to call for a report of the handwriting expert in order to test the genuineness of the alleged receipts filed by the landlord. The contention of the petitioner tenant before the prescribed authority was that the receipts so filed by the landlord were forged. This application was rejected by the prescribed authority against which the present writ petition has been filed. The prescribed authority held that the court is not there to collect the evidence for the parties. In my opinion, the prescribed authority was justified in rejecting the application. If the tenant wants to produce any evidence in order to support her contention, it is open to her to file such evidence, but, the tenant cannot force the court to collect the evidence on her behalf. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 09.09.2010 LSR