A tenant who admitted the rental agreement cannot belatedly seek signature comparison during arguments.

The landlord filed R.L.T.O.P. No. 2 of 2026 seeking eviction for arrears of rent and related reliefs.

The tenant later applied under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 37(c) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act to have the signature on the rental agreement compared with her admitted signatures.

She alleged that the disputed agreement was fabricated.

The landlord relied on the tenant’s reply notice, in which she had admitted entering into an agreement before the Rent Authority.

The Rent Controller dismissed the application, noting the tenant’s admission and that the request for comparison was made when the matter was posted for arguments.

The tenant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Rent Controller’s refusal to refer the disputed rental agreement for expert signature comparison warranted interference under Article 227

2. Whether the tenant’s prior admission of the agreement and the timing of her application justified rejecting the request for expert comparison

The tenant invoked Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, concerning expert opinion, and Section 37(c) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act; the judgment does not set out or interpret the text of either provision.

The Court treated the Rent Controller proceedings as summary in nature and considered the tenant’s prior admission of the agreement and the belated timing of the comparison request relevant to whether the order warranted interference.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the tenant’s reply notice admitted the agreement between the parties and that her principal objection at that stage concerned liability for arrears, not execution of the agreement.

In light of that admission, the Court considered her later request to compare signatures—made when the case was posted for arguments—to be belated.

Given the summary nature of the proceedings, it found no error or illegality in the Rent Controller’s refusal to allow the comparison.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.