@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Kalyanasundaram, J.@mdashThis Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in RCA No. 664 of 2011 confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP No. 1204 of 2003.
2. The respondent, as landlord filed an eviction petition in RCOP No. 1204 of 2003 on the ground of wilful default and own use occupation. The case of the landlord is that the tenant occupied the petition premises on 24.02.2002 on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- but he is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and failed to pay the rent from the inception of the tenancy. The landlord further stated that he requires the petition premises for his additional accommodation, as the premises in which he is living is not adequate for his family consisting of himself, his wife, two sons married daughter, son-in-law and grand children.
3. The tenant filed counter stating that there is no landlord and tenant relationship, that he occupied the petition premises on lease for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and as per the lease agreement, the tenant need not pay rent to the landlord. The tenant further contended that the requirement of the petition premises for additional accommodation is not bonafide.
4. Before the learned Rent Controller, both the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the lease agreement relied upon by the tenant is a forged one and held that the tenant is liable to pay rent of Rs.1500/- per month to the landlord. The learned Rent Controller has further held that the requirement of additional accommodation by the landlord is bonafide and order eviction.
5. Aggrieved by the order, the tenant filed appeal in RCA No. 664 of 2011 and the Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller, dismissed the appeal. Against the concurred finding of fact, the tenant has filed the present revision.
6. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant and therefore the burden is on the landlord to prove the relationship of the parties. The learned counsel further submitted that both the authorities below relying upon the evidence of the expert opinion held that the lease deed, Ex.R10 is a forged one and that the tenant was not given opportunity to prove the veracity of the opinion of the handwriting expert. The learned counsel, relying upon the judgment in
7. Per contra, Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, relying upon the oral documentary evidence held that Ex.R10, lease agreement dated 22.02.2002 is a forged one. The learned counsel further submitted that the tenant has taken an inconsistent stand during the trial and in his evidence, he has stated that the lease agreement was reduced in writing in a white paper but he has produced Ex.R10, lease agreement which is written on stamp paper worth Rs.20/-. It is further submitted that the opinion of an handwriting expert is not a substantive evidence and in this case, the courts below have relied upon the evidence of PW1 and also compared the signature in Ex.R10 and the admitted signature contained in a will. Therefore, the finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below need not be disturbed by this Court, while exercising powers under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.
8. The tenant relies upon Ex.R10, lease agreement to contend that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. At the instance of the landlord, Ex.R10, lease deed was sent for opinion of handwriting expert and the report of the handwriting expert shows that Ex.R10, lease deed does not contain the signature of the landlord. RW1, the petitioner herein has given evidence stating that the lease agreement was written in a white paper whereas Ex.R10 was written in a stamp paper worth Rs.20/-. Both the authorities below, referring to Ex.R10, lease deed and evidence of RW1, held that Ex.R10 is a forged and fabricated document.
9. Though the authorities below have referred the opinion of the handwriting expert, the finding was given mainly relying upon the evidence of RW1, petitioner herein and on the basis of comparison of signatures made by the court itself. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the case has to be remanded back to the court below for affording opportunity to the tenant to prove the veracity of the handwriting expert cannot be countenanced. Both the authorities below, on appreciation of evidence, held that the petitioner is a tenant and he is liable to pay the monthly rent of Rs.1500/- to the landlord. It has further held that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent.
10. It is not seriously disputed by the tenant that the landlord is in occupation of the portion of the building to an extent of 800 sq.ft and his family consist of his wife, two sons, married daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren. Both the authorities below have found that the petition premises is required for the landlord for his additional accommodation and they have also held that the hardship to the landlord would out way the hardship caused to the tenant in case of eviction. The above finding of fact recorded by the authorities below does not warrant any interference by this Court.
11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 19.02.2014 passed in RCA No. 664 of 2011 by the VIII Small Causes Court at Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
