ORDER
1. Vide this order I will dispose of four Revision Petitions, C.R. Nos. 1640 and 1641 of 1985 filed by Suresh Kumar, the tenant and Civil Revision Nos. 2601 and 2602 of 1985 filed by Mewa Ram and another, the landlords.
2. Two ejectment applications were filed by the landlords. In the first application they claimed ejectment of Suresh Kumar, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent for the period from 1-1-1979 to 31-10-1980, and that the shop in dispute was In a dilapidated condition. In the second application they claimed arrears of rent for the period from 1-10-1981 to July 31, 1982 as well as that the building was in a dilapidated condition. Both these petitions were tried together and dismissed by the Rent Controller. However, the Appellate Authority accepted the appeals and directed ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. With regard to the condition of the building both the Authorities held that the shop required repairs and was not in a dilapidated condition, thus not unsafe for human habitation.
3. In Civil Revision No. 2601 of 1985 filed by the landlord, on an application filed, local commissioner was appointed who submitted his report dated 23-1-1989 alongwith An-nexure P.I containing four photographs of the shop in dispute. No objections to the report were filed. I have heard counsel for the parties.
4. The first question is as to whether the tenant was in arrears of rent and his ejectment has been rightly ordered by the Appellate Authority. The case of the tenant was that the rent was paid against receipts which were in the babis of the tenant. In order to prove entries in the bahis, an expert was produced as R W 3 Shri Som Nath Aggarwal. On the other hand the landlord also produced an Expert as AW 9 Shri Hardial Singh Pental. The trial Court after referring to the evidence of these Experts having been produced by the parties in their favour, itself examined disputed signatures on these receipts with the admitted signatures and came to the conclusion that they were of the landlord. The Appellate Authority set aside the aforesaid finding stating that the Court was not to act as an Expert to record such a finding on its own examination. However, it could, while examining the disputed signatures, accept evidence of one of the Experts examined by the parties. Further stating that under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, the entries in the bahis could not be accepted to create charge, they were ignored and finding was recorded that the tenant was in arrears of rent.
5. As far as applicability of Section 34 of the Evidence Act to the entries is concerned, the same is not at all applicable and attracted to the case in hand. Section 34 ibid is applicable to such entries in the accounts which are made in regular course and create any liability. By the entries in dispute, no liability is being created on any of the parties. These entries sought to be proved are merely in the form of receipts of the amount of rent. Even if these receipts were not signed, on the basis of these entries in view of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, it could not be held that payments were received by the landlord.
6. The further question for consideration is as to whether these entries have been proved to have been singed by the landlord. When the landlord appeared as AW 1, these entries were not specifically put to him. Suresh Kumar tenant, while appearing as RWl, also did not state that he made the payment of rent and obtained receipts in his bahis. Thus, such evidence is not enough to prove signatures of the landlord on these receipts which are in the bahis. Then the question arises as to whether the evidence of the Expert produced by the tenant should have been believed as against the Expert produced by the landlord. The evidence of these Experts was rightly ignored by the Appellate Authority. The fact cannot be lost sight of that in the case of disputed signatures, the Experts would generally depose in favour of the party producing them. No doubt, only on that ground in a given case evidence of one of the Experts may not be discarded if the Court after examining the disputed signatures with the genuine signatures also comes to the same conclusion. In that way the opinion of such an Expert can be accepted with re-inforced reasoning. In such a case the Court will not be acting as an Expert. Three modes of proof of document were suggested by the Supreme Court in Fakh-ruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197. Firstly by direct evidence, secondly by Expert’s evidence and thirdly by the Court coming to the conclusion by comparison. The Supreme Court observed as under (at page SC 1328 and 1329, AIR 1967):–
“Where an expert’s opinion is given the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness.”
7. In the present case it cannot be said by comparison of the disputed signatures on the bahis with the other signatures with certainty that they bear the signatures of the landlord and much reliance thus could not be placed on the Expert’s evidence produced by the tenant. As already observed above, the author of these entries was not produced to prove the same and such entries were not put to the landlord when he appeared as a witness. The finding of the Appellate Authority that the tenant was in arrears of rent was correct.
8. The other ground of ejectment was that the building was unsafe for human habitation on the evidence already produced. The finding was against the landlord. However, the report of the local commissioner produced in Civil Revision No. 2601 of 1985, if examined with the help of the four photographs of Annexure P. 1 it is seen that there is no manner of doubt that the building is in a dilapidated condition and unsafe for human habitation. Apart from observing cracks in the walls of the shop, it was stated that the roof had almost given way and the iron rods of the roof were visible. To this there cannot be two opinions in view of the photographs-Annexure P. 1. Learned counsel for the tenant referred to the report of the local commissioner appointed by the trial Court wherein he had opined that by spending about Rs. 150/-the repairs could be effected to the roof. I am not prepared to accept such statement. It is not the repair of the plaster of the roof which was required to be done. The plaster is put on the roof and iron rods are inside the concrete. When concrete has given way of almost of the entire roof and the iron rods have come out, there is no other conclusion, but the one that the building has become dilapidated, and unsafe for human habitation. The condition of the roof considered with cracks found on the walls support this finding. The findings of the Authorities below on this fatt is reversed.
9. For the reasons recorded above, Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1640 and 1641 of 1985 filed by the tenant are dismissed and Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 2601 and 2602 of 1985 are allowed. The ejectment of the tenant is ordered from the shop in dispute. He is directed to vacate the same within a period of three months and deliver possession to the landlord. Parties to bear their own costs.
10. Order accordingly.