IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5741 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.10.2009 Raj Kumar .....Petitioner versus Sunita Rani and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner-tenant has been directed to produce the original of registered Tabdili Malkiat Nama No.215 dated 30.5.2008. The said document has been directed to be produced for the comparison of undisputed and admitted signatures of the petitioner-tenant with his disputed signatures on the Rent Note/Agreement dated 27.8.1990 (Ex.R-3). The petitioner-tenant has come up with a blatant denial of everything including execution of the Rent Note, on the pretext that C.R. No.5741 of 2009 (O&M) 2 though he knows English but has not signed any Rent Agreement in English as he always signs in Hindi only. In his cross-examination, the petitioner, however, admitted that his mother has transferred some property in his name by way of Tabdili Malkiat Nama dated 30.5.2008 which bears his signatures in English. The execution of that document is admitted by petitioner's brother also when he appeared as RW-5. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller has rightly directed the petitioner to produce on record the original registered document Tabdili Malkiat Nama No.215 dated 30.5.2008 so that his undisputed and admitted signatures on that document can be compared with the disputed one on the Rent Note Ex.R-3. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that onus to prove the execution of the Rent Note was on the respondent-landlady and the petitioner cannot be compelled to produce evidence against his own interest. It is argued that the respondent ought to have proved it by adducing the evidence in affirmative and not in rebuttal. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. From the facts and circumstances noticed above, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner wants to play hide and seek with the Rent Controller. The petitioner having disputed his signatures on the Rent Note, the old respondent landlady has no other option but to trace out some document bearing admitted signatures of the petitioner and then get them compared with the disputed one. Since the registered document i.e., C.R. No.5741 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Tabdili Malkiat Nama, appears to have come into existence during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the recourse adopted by the Rent Controller to arrive at a definite conclusion regarding genuineness of the Rent Note in dispute, is infallible. No interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is called for with the impugned order. The revision petition stands dismissed. 07-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE