IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1635 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 11, 2010 Kanta Devi and another. …Petitioners Versus Malkiat Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present: Mr. Harindar Kumar Aurora, Advocate, for the petitioners. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioners herein filed an application before the learned Rent Controller to obtain leave to examine a finger print expert, and to thereby prove that a testamentary disposition executed by Piara Singh in favour of the respondent, and also a sale deed dated 30.01.1973 in favour of the respondent, is forged and fabricated and that the documentation aforementioned does not bear the thumb impressions of Piara Singh. The plea did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller. C.R. No. 1635 of 2010 The petition, which calls into question the validity of the impugned order, does not merit acceptance. The reasons therefor are as under:- The petitioners are not the legal heirs of Piara Singh. They have, thus, no locus standi to challenge the validity or otherwise of testamentary disposition and the sale deed aforementioned. Further, as noticed in the impugned order itself, this Court had (in the course of its order dated 07.09.2009) held that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the title of the landlord. The impugned order further noticed that the petitioner – tenant having conceded to be a tenant of the tenanted premises, is not competent to raise the plea aforementioned and to thereby lead evidence to prove that the Will and sale deed were forged and fabricated, particularly when those documents pertain to the period prior to the introduction of the petitioners, as a tenant, into the property in dispute. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine accordingly. March 11, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2