HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4292 OF 2009. DATED 11TH DECEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN Smt. Zakia Begum …Petitioner And Hasan Bin Saleh Rabaki …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4292 OF 2009. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.8.2009 passed in I.A.No. 122 of 2009 in R.C.No. 25 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby, the learned II Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The background facts in a nutshell that led to filing of this revision by the tenant of the RCC schedule premises are: one Abdullah Hadi Ali Afif S/o Ali Eisa Afif was the owner of the RCC schedule premises. One Pasha Miya took the premises on lease on monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. The terms and conditions of the lease are reduced into writing on 4.3.1996. Subsequently, Abdullah Hadi Ali Afif sold the property to the respondent herein under a registered sale deed. The said Pasha Miya died and the premises continued to be in occupation of the petitioner herein. The respondent/landlord being the purchaser of the RCC schedule premises, caused notice to the petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default and bonafide requirement. The petitioner/tenant resisted the application. She pleaded that Ali Bin Essa, who is father of Abdullah` Hadi Ali Afif, received Rs.60,000/- on 14.3.1996 as an advance deposit which is refundable at the time of vacating the mulgi. She also pleaded that Ali Bin Essa received a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.9.1996 and executed a receipt. Both the receipts have been marked as Exs.R.4 and R.5 respectively. The parties adduced evidence in respect of their contentions. When the case came up for further evidence on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, she moved I.A.No. 122 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the receipt dated 15.9.1996 to hand-writing expert for comparison of the signature of Ali Bin Essa with the admitted signature on the rental deed and also receipt dated 14.3.1996. The application has been resisted by the respondent- landlord. The learned II Additional Rent Controller, on hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss the application by the order dated 18.8.2009 on the ground that the Court itself is empowered to compare the signatures in dispute at the appropriate time under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said order is assailed in this revision petition. This Civil Revision Petition came to be admitted on 17.9.2009 while granting interim stay of all further proceedings in R.C.No. 25 of 2007. The respondent-landlord entered his appearance and filed CRPMP.No. 7135 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 17.9.2009 passed in CRP.MP.No. 5874 of 2009 in CRP.No. 4292 of 2009. When the vacate stay petition came up for hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, the Civil Revision Peititon is taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the trial Court has not considered the evidence of P.W.2 in right perspective and thereby erred in dismissing the application. The learned Counsel submits that P.W.2 admitted execution of receipt by Ex.R.5 dated 14.3.1996 by his father Ali Bin Essa while denying Ex.R.4 receipt dated 15.9.1996, which necessitated the petitioner- tenant to file the application for sending Ex.R.4, receipt dated 15.9.1996 to the hand-writing expert. A further submission has been made that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, filing of the application by the petitioner-tenant to send Ex.R.4 receipt has become imminent. The learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the trial Court having exercised its discretion undertook the task of comparing the disputed signature with the admitted signature, in which case, the order of dismissal of the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been held by our High Court in Koparowthu Krishna Rao Vs.Karlapudi Satya Krishna Vara Prasada Rao {1996 91) ALD 1151} that it is hazardous to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature by the Court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment reads as under: “As held in Bhupendra Narain Mandal’s case (AIR 1965 Patna 332) by the Division Bench of Patna High Court, that in comparing the handwriting upon disputed document with the admitted handwriting, the general character of the two writings should be compared because, it is not uncommon to find differences in the writings of one and the same person even after a short interval of time. As it depends on so many extraneous circumstances, the pen, the ink, the paper, the posture of his hand and the general conditions in which writes. It is hazardous to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature by the Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Even otherwise, agreeing with trial Court, I reach to the conclusion, that even though there is change in formation of some letters in the pronote Ex.A.1, it is of little consequence not only because the man may change writing his signature under the circumstances mentioned above, but also there is oral testimony on record, which appears reliable that the defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the respondent.” P.W.2-Abdullah Hadi Ali Afif, who was the original landlord admitted the signature of his father on the receipt dated 4.3.1996 while denying the signature of his father on the receipt dated 15.9.1996. Under these circumstances, the petitioner-tenant filed the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Dismissal of the said application by the trial Court on the ground that the signature can be compared by exercising the power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that even if the receipts are taken into consideration, they do not bind the respondent since the same are not reflected in the rental deed dated 4.3.1996, which is marked at Ex.X.1. In such case, the respondent has to advance the same plea before the trial Court and invite decision there on. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 18.8.2009 passed in I.A.No. 122 of 2009 in R.C.No. 25 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, Consequently, I.A.No. 122 of 2009 shall stand allowed. The Trial Court has to dispose of rent control case being RC.No. 25 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Dated 11th November, 2009. Note: CC in two days. (BO) Msnr.