S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J. (Vacation Judge)
1. In this case, after the undertaking given by the tenant a new development appears to have taken place which is contested by both the parties. According to the tenant, after the undertaking was given by him what happened was that through the efforts of one Mr P.C. Gupta, a common friend of the parties, the landlord agreed to create a fresh tenancy by increasing the rent of Rs 325 to 375 per month and allowed the tenant to continue, thus resulting into a novation of the contract. In support of his plea the tenant has produced two rent receipts alleged to have been signed by the landlord as also a cheque which was given by the tenant to the landlord which appears to have been deposited in the Bank. The stand taken by the landlord, however, is that no such fresh tenancy was created at all and the entire case has been cooked up by the tenant in order to defeat his eviction. The photostat copy of the rent receipt has been produced before me which is alleged to have been signed by Naresh Chand Gupta, the landlord. I have made a visual comparison with the admitted signature of Naresh Chand Gupta on the vakalatnama and other papers and on the rent receipt. Prima facie, it seems to me personally that the signatures do not appear to be a patent forgery by the tenant. The entire question has to be decided by a proper enquiry which alone would unfold the truth. For these reasons, therefore, I would direct the Rent Controller to make an enquiry into the following facts:
“(i) Whether a fresh tenancy was created by the landlord, Naresh Chand Gupta, in favour of the tenant, Mr J.P. Sharma, as alleged by the tenant.
(ii) Whether in pursuance of this tenancy the tenant paid to the landlord a sum of Rs 375 and the landlord in turn gave rent receipts for this amount.
(iii) Whether or not the signatures of the landlord appearing on the rent receipts and also on the deposit slip are actually of the landlord who has emphatically denied to have signed the same.”
2. The Controller shall send the disputed and the admitted signatures for comparison to the government expert to give his opinion within 10 days from the receipt of the record and the expenses of the expert, if any, shall be met by the tenant. The enquiry shall be completed within four weeks from today and the report should be submitted to this Court within six weeks. The matter shall be put up before the same Bench which decided this case as soon as the report of the Controller is received. The Controller shall be entitled to take such evidence as may be produced by the parties in question. In the meantime, the tenant is allowed to continue in the house and the undertaking will stand suspended. The rent of Rs 325 shall be deposited by the tenant every month in the Court of the Rent Controller.
3. Any observations which I have made will not at all affect either the opinion of the expert or the finding which may be arrived at by the Rent Controller. Let all the concerned records, in original, be forwarded to the Rent Controller at once.