Udayveer Singh vs Rent Tribunal And 2 Others

`
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3845 of 2026
Udayveer Singh
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rent Tribunal and 2 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jahar Singh (kashyap), Stuti Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prem Chandra, Sudhanshu
Kumar
AFR
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Ram Lakhan Kashyap, learned Advocate holding brief
of Sri Jahar Singh (Kashyap), learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Swapnil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
questions the legality of the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Rent
Authority, Etah in Rent Case No.629 of 2024 instituted under Section
21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act,
2021, as affirmed by the judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed by
the District Judge/Rent Tribunal, Etah in Misc. Appeal (RCA)-Nil of
2026. By the aforesaid orders, the petitioner's application seeking
examination by a handwriting expert of the disputed signatures
appearing on a photocopy of the alleged rent agreement dated

2
A227 No. - 3845 of 2026
22.09.2005, by comparison with the admitted signatures of late Ansar
Hussain,  predecessor-in-interest of respondent, has been rejected.
3. The controversy is narrow, but it raises an issue of evidentiary
reliability of considerable importance. The principal question that arises
for consideration is whether disputed signatures appearing on a
photocopy of an alleged rent agreement can legitimately be referred for
scientific examination by a handwriting expert in the absence of the
original document.
4. The petitioner's case, in brief, is that a rent agreement dated
22.09.2005, which was subsequently notarized on 16.12.2005, was
executed between him and late Ansar Hussain in respect of the shop in
dispute. It is asserted that, pursuant thereto, the petitioner entered into
possession of the premises, established his tailoring business therein, and
has continued to occupy the premises as a tenant upon payment of rent in
terms of the said agreement.
5. The respondent instituted proceedings before the Rent Authority
on 29.04.2024 under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, seeking eviction of the petitioner
from the shop in dispute. The proceedings were registered as Rent Case
No.629 of 2024. In his written statement, the petitioner relied upon the
aforesaid rent agreement and pleaded that the signatures appearing
thereon were those of late Ansar Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of
the respondent. On that basis, it was contended that the provision under
sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 2021 were inapplicable
to the facts of the case.
6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner moved an
application praying that the disputed signatures appearing on the
photocopy of the alleged rent agreement be referred to a handwriting
expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of late Ansar Hussain
available on the rent receipts and other admitted documents.
7. The Rent Authority rejected the application principally on the
ground that the original rent agreement had not been produced and that

3
A227 No. - 3845 of 2026
the proposed comparison was sought to be undertaken solely on the basis
of a photocopy. It held that, in the absence of the original document, no
useful purpose would be served by referring the disputed signatures for
scientific examination by a handwriting expert.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Rent Tribunal. By the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2026, the
Tribunal affirmed the order of the Rent Authority, holding that an expert
opinion founded upon a photocopy could not furnish dependable
scientific assistance for adjudication. The Tribunal further noticed the
respondents' objection regarding the admissibility of the alleged rent
agreement under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and found no
ground warranting interference with the order passed by the Rent
Authority.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities
below have committed manifest illegality in rejecting the application
seeking examination by a handwriting expert. It is contended that the
respondent, while deposing before the Rent Authority, admitted that he
was acquainted with and could identify the signatures of his deceased
father, late Ansar Hussain. He is also stated to have admitted the initial
rate of rent and the agreed mode of its enhancement. In view of these
admissions, it is urged that there existed sufficient foundational material
to justify comparison of the disputed signatures appearing on the alleged
rent agreement with the admitted signatures of late Ansar Hussain
available on the rent receipts. It is, therefore, submitted that denial of
such opportunity has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and has
resulted in failure of justice.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
supports the impugned orders and submits that no interference is
warranted in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution. As a preliminary objection, it is contended that the
appeal preferred against the order of the Rent Authority itself was not
maintainable, the order under challenge being purely interlocutory in

4
A227 No. - 3845 of 2026
nature. On merits, it is submitted that scientific comparison of
handwriting or signatures cannot ordinarily be undertaken on the basis of
a mere photocopy, since the original characteristics of the writing,
including line quality, pen pressure, ink flow, stroke formation and other
microscopic features essential for forensic examination, are not
preserved in such a reproduction. Reliance in this regard has been placed
upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Lakshmi v.
1
State of Andhra Pradesh .
11. It is further submitted that the factum of tenancy is not in dispute
and, therefore, no material prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by
refusal of the prayer for expert examination. It is also contended that the
alleged rent agreement is neither registered nor duly stamped and is
consequently confronted with objections regarding its admissibility
under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 49 of the
Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 107 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882. According to the respondents, directing expert examination of
a document suffering from such foundational infirmities would be an
exercise in futility.
12. The controversy lies in a narrow compass; nevertheless, it raises
an issue of evidentiary reliability of considerable significance. The
principal question that falls for consideration is whether disputed
signatures appearing on a photocopy of an alleged rent agreement
constitute a proper foundation for seeking examination by a handwriting
expert in the absence of the original document, which alone preserves
the characteristics necessary for a meaningful scientific comparison.
13. It is trite that the opinion of a handwriting expert is a relevant fact
under the law of evidence. Equally well settled, however, is the principle
that such opinion is merely advisory in character and does not conclude
the issue. The Court is not bound by the opinion of the expert, which is
only one piece of evidence to be evaluated in conjunction with the entire
2
material available on record. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ,
1 Writ Petition No.24159 of 2016, decided on 12 November, 2021
2 (1980) 1 SCC 704

5
A227 No. - 3845 of 2026
the Supreme Court reiterated that expert evidence is intended to assist
the Court and not to supplant its judicial function.
14. The aforesaid principle necessarily proceeds on the assumption
that the material forwarded for examination is itself capable of scientific
scrutiny. A handwriting expert does not merely compare the visual
appearance of letters or signatures. The exercise ordinarily involves
examination of line quality, pen pressure, rhythm, speed, natural
variations, pen lifts, retouching, ink flow and other microscopic
characteristics which are ordinarily discernible only from the original
writing. A photocopy merely reproduces the visual image of a document
and inevitably obliterates these intrinsic forensic features. Consequently,
an opinion founded solely upon a photocopy is inherently less
dependable than one based upon the original document.
15. The objection in the present case is, therefore, not merely
technical but goes to the very reliability of the proposed exercise. If an
expert is required to compare disputed signatures appearing on a
photocopy with admitted signatures available on original documents, he
is deprived of the very indicia which render handwriting examination
scientifically meaningful. The risk of distortion, blurring, reduction,
shadowing and loss of pressure marks inherent in a photocopy renders
the exercise incapable of yielding dependable forensic assistance. In T.
Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court
observed that comparison of a disputed signature appearing on a
photocopy with original signatures is susceptible to mechanical error and
defective reproduction. The principle emerging therefrom is that the
Court is not required to direct an expert examination where the material
itself is inherently unsuitable for reliable scientific comparison.
16. The position assumes greater significance in the facts of the
present case where the alleged rent agreement is available only in the
form of a photocopy. The petitioner's own case is that the original
remained with late Ansar Hussain. The document sought to be examined
is, therefore, merely a secondary reproduction. In such circumstances,

6
A227 No. - 3845 of 2026
the Rent Authority cannot be faulted for concluding that the proposed
exercise would not materially assist the adjudicatory process.
17. The petitioner has placed considerable reliance upon the alleged
admissions made by the respondent, during his deposition, namely, that
he could identify the signatures of his deceased father and had admitted
the initial rate of rent together with the agreed mode of its enhancement.
Those assertions, even if accepted at face value, do not alter the legal
position. Admissions undoubtedly constitute relevant evidence, but they
do not confer upon a party an indefeasible right to seek expert
examination of a document which is unavailable in its original form.
Whether a document should be referred for forensic examination
depends upon its intrinsic evidentiary worth and the feasibility of
obtaining reliable scientific assistance. Collateral admissions cannot
improve the forensic reliability of a secondary reproduction.
18. The Rent Tribunal has also noticed the objection regarding the
admissibility of the alleged rent agreement under Section 35 of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899. This Court refrains from expressing any final
opinion on that question, which shall be determined at the appropriate
stage in accordance with law. Nevertheless, where the document is not
only unavailable in its original form but is also confronted with an
objection regarding its admissibility, the authorities below cannot be said
to have acted unreasonably in declining to direct an expert examination.
3
In Bidyut Sarkar v. Kanchilal Pal , the Supreme Court reiterated the legal
consequences flowing from statutory defects affecting the enforceability
of documents under the Stamp Act.
19. The contention that the respondent had admitted certain terms
relating to the rent or had stated that he could identify the signatures of
his deceased father also does not carry the matter any further. Such
statements are matters of evidence whose probative value shall be
assessed by the Rent Authority while adjudicating the proceedings on
merits. They cannot compel the Court to direct an expert examination
3 2024 SCC Online SC 2603

7
A227 No. - 3845 of 2026
which is otherwise rendered impracticable by the non-production of the
original document.
20. It is true that some decisions have recognised that, in exceptional
cases, an expert may express an opinion on the basis of a clear
photocopy. Those authorities, however, do not lay down a rule that every
disputed photocopy must invariably be referred for forensic examination.
The decisive consideration remains whether the material proposed to be
examined is capable of furnishing dependable scientific assistance. That
assessment lies within the judicial discretion of the Court concerned. In
the facts of the present case, the discretion exercised by the authorities
below neither suffers from perversity nor discloses any jurisdictional
error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
21. The limits of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution also deserve emphasis. The jurisdiction is
supervisory and not appellate. This Court does not reappreciate the
evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view may
also be possible. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate
court or tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, has failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it, or where the impugned order suffers from patent
illegality, manifest perversity or has occasioned a grave miscarriage of
justice.
22. Tested on the aforesaid touchstone, the impugned orders disclose
no such infirmity. The Rent Authority declined the petitioner's
application principally because the original rent agreement had not been
produced and the proposed comparison was sought to be undertaken
solely on the basis of a photocopy. The Rent Tribunal affirmed that view
while also noticing the objection regarding the admissibility of the
document under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. These are manifestly
relevant considerations bearing directly upon the feasibility and
evidentiary worth of the proposed expert examination. Neither authority
ignored any material circumstance nor took into account any irrelevant
consideration. The discretion exercised by them is informed by sound

8
A227 No. - 3845 of 2026
legal principles and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error
warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
23. Significantly, rejection of the application seeking expert opinion
does not foreclose the petitioner's right to establish the existence of the
alleged tenancy or the terms thereof through other legally admissible
evidence. The petitioner remains at liberty to rely upon rent receipts, oral
evidence or any other admissible documentary material available on
record. The impugned orders merely decline one particular mode of
proof which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, has been
found incapable of yielding reliable evidentiary assistance.
24. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the
respondent had admitted certain terms relating to the rent or had stated
that he could identify the signatures of his deceased father also does not
carry the matter any further. Such statements constitute matters of
evidence whose probative value shall fall for consideration by the Rent
Authority while deciding the proceedings on merits. They cannot, by
themselves, confer upon the petitioner a right to seek expert examination
of a document where the foundational requirement for such an exercise,
namely production of the original document, is absent. No amount of
admissions can dispense with the foundational requirement that the
material proposed for forensic examination must itself be capable of
reliable scientific scrutiny. An expert opinion cannot be directed merely
to undertake a speculative exercise or to overcome the inherent
limitations arising from examination of a photocopy of a disputed
document.  
25. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that
the Rent Authority, as affirmed by the Rent Tribunal, exercised its
discretion upon relevant and germane considerations. The impugned
orders neither suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity nor disclose any
patent illegality, manifest perversity or failure of justice warranting
interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9
A227 No. - 3845 of 2026
26. The petition, being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.  
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
July 29, 2026
RKK/-
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad