CRP 149/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr R Bordoloi, learned counsel for the opposite party. The order impugned is dated 27.4.2011 rendered by the learned Munsiff No .1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 349/2009. The suit has been instituted by the opposite party against the petitioner seeking her eviction from the tenante d premises on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as bonafide requi rement. The petitioner has meanwhile entered appearance and has filed her writte n statement resisting the suit. According to her, she is not a defaulter and tha t the opposite party/ plaintiff also does not require the suit premises bonafide . The suit is presently at the stage of cross-examination of the witnesses of th e opposite party/ plaintiff. At this stage the petitioner filed two applications-one seeking leave of the learned Trial Court to examine the rent deposit challans by her qua the ren t for the tenanted premises and also to have the signature of the cashier thereo n examined by a forensic expert and the other seeking an order for production of the agreement of tenancy containing the terms and conditions thereof. By the or der impugned both these prayers have been rejected, however, granting leave to t he parties to make a prayer afresh for an appropriate direction to have the rent deposit challans examined by a forensic expert if a necessity therefor so arise s. According to the learned Trial Court, based on an allegation of forgery of th e signatures on the rent deposit challans, meanwhile, a criminal proceeding has been lodged and investigation in that connection is in progress with the police. The learned Trial Court has been of the further view that as the written agreem ent only mentions about the initial rent of Rs. 1000/- per month, the prayer for its production to resolve the controversy as to whether the enhanced rent as ag reed to by the parties stood at Rs. 1200/- per month as insisted by the petition er or Rs. 1800/- per month as claimed by the opposite party was without substanc e. Mr Roy Choudhury has urged that without prejudice to the rights and cont entions of the petitioner, for the present, this petition may be closed leaving her(petitioner) at liberty and, if so advised, to approach the learned Trial Cou rt anew with a prayer for proving the relevant rent deposit challans and also to have the signature of the cashier Taposh Bhattacharjee thereon examined by a fo rensic expert. Mr Bordoloi has urged that in view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order no further direction is called for. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record as well as the impugned order, it is considered expedient to close this petition with the observation that as indicated therein (impugned or der) if at any later point of time in the suit the petitioner and for that matt er any of the contesting parties consider it essential to have the relevant rent deposit challans proved and further get the signature of the cashier thereon ex amined by a forensic expert and a prayer to that effect is made before the learn ed Trial Court, the same would be duly considered in accordance with law with th e eventual purpose of resolving the actual controversy. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.