This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 3.07.2008 made in M.P.No.19 of 2006 in R.C.A.No.446 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.
2. The respondent in R.C.A.No.446 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai is the revision petitioner before this Court.
3. He is aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, dated 3.7.2008, whereby the petition filed by the respondent herein (who is the appellant in R.C.A.No.446 of 2003) under Sec.18A of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 hereinafter called the Rent Control Act, read with Order 26 Rule 10A of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner was allowed.
4. The facts which are necessary for disposing of the above Civil Revision petition are as follows:
The respondent herein as Landlord, filed R.C.O.P.No. 2684 of 1996 against the revision petitioner herein under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act. The case of the respondent before the Rent Controller is that he is the owner of the petition schedule premises and the revision petitioner herein is a tenant in respect of the 5th shop measuring about 350 sq.ft. In premises No.115, Arcot road, Vadapalani, Chennai 26 on a monthly rent of Rs.1875/-. According to the respondent herein, the revision petitioner was not regular in paying the rents. The respondent herein along with his family members decided to leave for U.S.A. during the third week of August 1996. Before leaving for U.S.A., the respondent herein claimed that he instructed all his tenants including the revision petitioner to deposit the monthly rents in S.B. Account No.5684 in State Apex Co-operative Bank, Vadapalani branch, Chennai 26. Inspite of giving such specific instructions to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner failed to pay the rent for the month of June in July 1996, when he left India on 24.8.1996. On his return from U.S.A. on 10.11.1996, when he checked up his Bank account, he found that the revision petitioner remitted only Rs.1875/- being the rent for the month of June 1996, that too, in August 1996 and subsequently he failed to deposit the rents as instructed by him. Therefore, it was contended by the respondent /landlord that the revision petitioner tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents for the months of July, August and September 1996. Hence, he filed R.C.O.P.No.2684 of 1996.
5. This R.C.O.P. was resisted by the revision petitioner herein by filing a counter statement. The Rent Controller by order dated 5.2.2003, dismissed the R.C.O.P. No.2684 of 1996 and against which, the respondents herein filed R.C.A. No.446 of 2003. Pending R.C.A.No.446 of 2003, the respondent herein, as appellant in R.C.A.No.446 of 2003, filed M.P.No.19 of 2006 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of sending the documents namely Ex.P1 series, Exhibit R1 (Rental agreement), vakalat and counter to the Assistant Director, Documents Division, Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Chennai 4, to compare the disputed signature found in Ex.P1 series, with Ex.R1, vakalat and the counter and to obtain a report and to produce the same before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.19 of 2006, the respondent herein stated that the revision petitioner became his tenant on 1.5.1987 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. The rent was increased from time to time and in 1996, he issued two receipts as requested by the revision petitioner i.e. one for Rs.1400/- and another for Rs.475/-, instead of issuing one receipt for the entire monthly rent of Rs.1875/-. He marked two rental receipts i.e. 1) for Rs.1400/- and 2) for Rs.475/- for the months of March, April and May 1996 to show that the monthly rent is Rs.1875/-, but, the same was denied by the revision petitioner by contending that the monthly rent is only Rs.1,000/-. The revision petitioner also denied the signatures found in the receipts issued by the respondent herein for Rs.1400/-. It is the contention of the respondent/landlord that receipts were given to the revision petitioner/tenant for the months of March, April and May 1996 for Rs.1400/- and Rs.475/- and the counter foils were duly signed by the revision petitioner/ tenant. But, the revision petitioner/tenant denied his signature found in the counterfoils of the rental receipts issued for Rs.1400/-, while admitting his signature found in the receipts issued for Rs.475/- only. Therefore the respondent/landlord filed M.P.No.19 of 2006 and unless the admitted and disputed signatures are compared by the hand-writing expert, the respondent/landlord submitted that he would be put to great hardship.
6. This petition was resisted by the revision petitioner/ tenant by filing a counter wherein the revision petitioner/tenant stated that the signature found in the counterfoils are not his signatures and they are an act of forgery. It was further contended by the revision petitioner that the petition filed to appoint an advocate Commissioner is not maintainable.
7. A memo was filed by the respondent/landlord on 7.7.2006 stating that the Rent Controller accepted the contention of the tenant that the Rent Controller could not take up the burden of verifying the signatures and the same should be compared by hand-writing experts only. Therefore, he filed M.P.No.19 of 2006. When the miscellaneous petition was argued by the respondent's counsel, it was found that the rental receipts which were marked in Ex.P1 - S3 and Ex.P1 - S4 were torn of from the entire receipt book. Hence, a memo was filed to trace the document namely the three counterfoils for Rs.475/- in Ex.P1 S4 containing the signatures of the revision petitioner/tenant which are missing from the records.
8. Another memo was filed by the respondent/landlord herein, in November 2007, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority stating that his complaint was enquired into by the Chief Judge and it was observed by the Chief Judge that tracing of the lost documents might take considerable time and as such, further documents with the admitted signatures of the revision petitioner/tenant i.e. the Rental agreement could be filed and enquiry could be proceeded with. Accordingly, the respondent filed the original lease agreement dated 10.03.1988 and requested that the same could be marked as a document in M.P.No.19 of 2006.
9. Objections were submitted by the revision petitioner/tenant to the memo filed by the respondent/ landlord. According to him, the respondent denied the existence of original lease agreement when he was examined as P.W.1 before the Rent Controller. When he denied the existence of the lease agreement itself, how he got the original lease agreement dated 10.03.1988 now and therefore the same could not be marked.
10. Thereafter, M.P.No.177 of 2008 was filed by the respondent/ landlord under Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The prayer in M.P.No.177 of 2008 is to amend the petition in M.P.No.19 of 2006 as "to compare the disputed signature found in Ex.P1 S4 series, namely, the counterfoils bearing No.104, 105 and 106 for the amount of Rs.1400/- with the admitted signature in Ex.R1, namely, the rental agreement, Vakalat and counter" instead of to "compare the disputed signature found in Ex.P1 series with R1 rental agreement, vakalat and the counter."
11. In the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.177 of 2008, it is stated by the respondent/landlord that during trial before the Rent Controller, he marked the rental receipts issued for Rs.475/- as Ex.P1 S3 series and Rs.1400/- as Ex.P1 S4 series. The revision petitioner/ tenant denied the signature found in rental receipts i.e. Ex.P1 S4 series, but, admitted the signature in rental receipts i.e. Ex.P1 S3 series. M.P.No.19 of 2006 was filed by him for the purpose of sending Ex.P1 series with Ex.R1 rental agreement, vakalat and counter. Ex.P1 series contains the following documents.
1. Exhibit P1 S1 Counterfoils of the rental receipts
2. Exhibit P1 S2 Counterfoils of the rental receipts
3. Exhibit P1 S3 Counterfoils of three receipts bearing No.104, 105 and 106 for the amount of Rs.475/-
4. Exhibit P1 S4(series) Counterfoils of three receipts bearing No.104, 105 and 106 for the amount of Rs.1400/-.
12. The revision petitioner/tenant's brother who was examined as R.W.1 admitted the signature found in Ex.P1 S3 series and he denied the signatures found in Ex.P1 S4 series. At the time of filing M.P.No.19 of 2006 for appointing an Advocate Commissioner, it was mistakenly mentioned as disputed signature found in Ex.P1 series to be compared with Ex.R1 along with Vakalat and counter filed by the revision petitioner/ tenant. Now only, he realised that the correct document with the disputed signature is Ex.P1 S4 series which is to be compared with the admitted signature found in Ex.R1, rental agreement, Vakalat and counter. As the error is only a clerical one occurred at the time of filing petition the same is to be rectified now. Hence, he filed M.P.No.177 of 2008 for that purpose.
13. The amendment petition was allowed and consequently M.P.No.177 of 2008 was allowed. Thereafter, an additional counter affidavit was filed by the revision petitioner/ tenant in M.P.No.19 of 2006 stating that his signatures found in Vakalat and counter statement could not be sent for comparison with Ex.P1 S4 series, because, they are very much later in point of time than Ex.P1 S4 series.
14. Regarding the comparison of Ex.R1 xerox copy of rental agreement with Ex.P1 S4 series, he reiterated his contention that as the respondent/landlord denied the very existence of the rental agreement before the Rent Controller, the same could not be now marked, that too, on behalf of the respondent/landlord.
15. The Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 3.7.2008 allowed M.P.No.19 of 2006 and aggrieved by the same, the tenant has filed the above revision petition under Sec.25 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act.
16. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the entire documents available on record.
17. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the respondent herein has filed a petition under Sec.18A of the Rent Control Act read with Order 26 Rule 10(A) of C.P.C. and therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has committed an illegality by referring the disputed document to the opinion of the Hand-Writing expert, as no petition has been filed under the Evidence Act. He further added that Sec.18A of the Rent Control Act was enacted for an entirely different purpose and therefore, the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Appellate Authority has also committed an illegality in ordering comparison of the signature in Vakalat and counter of the petitioner herein because they are very much later in point of time of the rental agreement and the rental agreement is very much earlier in point of time. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order dated 3.7.2008 made in M.P.No.19 of 2006.
18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is nothing wrong in filing a petition under Sec.18A of the Rent Control Act read with Order 26 Rule 10(4) C.P.C. and even otherwise, quoting a wrong provision of law could not be held against the maintainability of the petition. The learned counsel further pointed out that no real prejudice has been caused to the revision petitioner and in fact, the comparison of the signature by a Hand-writing expert will go a long way to help the Appellate Court to arrive at a just and fair conclusion.
19. I have considered the rival submissions carefully.
20. It is not in dispute that Ex.P1 S4 series are the counterfoils of the three receipts for the rental amounts of Rs.1400/- and it is the case of the respondent/landlord that the revision petitioner put his signatures on the counterfoils, whereas the same was denied by the revision petitioner by contending that the signatures were not his signatures and they are an act of forgery and fabrication. But, the revision petitioner accepted and admitted the signatures found in Ex.P1 S3, which are the counterfoils of three receipts for Rs.475/-. Ex.R1 is the rental agreement marked on behalf of the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller. Therefore, the rental agreement is an admitted document and the signature found in the rental agreement was also admitted by the revision petitioner. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order of the Appellate Authority directing the Assistant Director, Documents Division, Forensic Science Department to take photocopies of the disputed signatures found in Ex.P1 s4 series, which are the counterfoils for Rs.1400/- and the admitted signature found in the original rental agreement i.e. Ex.R1.
21. Now, let me consider the argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner in assailing the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The first contention of the revision petitioner is that no petition has been filed under the Evidence Act and what was filed was a petition under Sec.18A of the Rent Control Act read with Order 26 Rule 10(A) of C.P.C. and therefore, the prayer granted by the Appellate Authority is beyond the scope of these sections.
22. I am unable to accept this submission as it is a settled law that quoting wrong provisions of law is not at all a ground to assail any order and such technicalities should not be put against the Court of law for rendering complete justice.
23. The next argument on behalf of the revision petitioner is that when the rental agreement i.e. Ex.R1 was disputed by the respondent/landlord before the Rent Controller by saying that there was no such rental agreement, it was not for the respondent/landlord to take a different stand now and to ask for the comparison of the signatures found in the rental agreement. This argument has also no merits because Ex.R1 Rental agreement was marked through the revision petitioner and it was not the case of the revision petitioner that Ex.R1 did not contain his signature.
24. The last limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, to compare Ex.P1 S4 series and the admitted signature found in the Ex.R1, vakalat and counter filed by the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the signatures contained in the vakalat and the counter could not be compared with Ex.P1 S4 series, as the vakalat and counter are not contemporaneous documents.
25. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this regard. The law is settled in this aspect, according to which, signatures contained in the contemporaneous documents alone are to be compared and not otherwise. Therefore, to this extent, the order of the Appellate Authority is to be interfered with. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Authority is modified as follows:
"The Assistant Director, Documents Division, Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Chennai 4 is directed to take photocopies of the disputed signatures found in Ex.P1 S4 series which are the counterfoils for a sum of Rs.1400/- and the admitted signature of the revision petitioner found in Ex.R1 alone.(original) It is made clear that the signatures contained in the counter and the vakalat should not be compared with Ex.P1 S4 series. (R1 original has been filed by the appellant)"
26. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of in the above terms by modifying the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. No cost.
27. Considering the fact that the R.C.O.P. is of the year 1996, I direct the Rent Control Appellate Authority to give utmost priority to this appeal and take every step to dispose of the appeal itself within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
vaan To The Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai