Signatures on a photocopy cannot be sent for handwriting expert examination as they lack forensic features like pen pressure and ink flow, rules High Court.

The petitioner (tenant) claimed occupancy of a shop based on a notarized rent agreement dated 22.09.2005.

Following eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent (landlord) under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the petitioner moved an application to refer disputed signatures on a photocopy of the alleged rent agreement for scientific examination by a handwriting expert.

The Rent Authority, Etah, rejected the application because the original document was not produced.

This order was affirmed by the Rent Tribunal, which further noted objections regarding the document's admissibility under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. 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.

2. Whether the discretionary orders passed by the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal suffer from jurisdictional error or manifest perversity warranting interference under Article 227.

The court emphasized that expert opinion under the Indian Evidence Act is advisory and intended to assist, not supplant, judicial functions, as established in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Forensic examination requires original characteristics like line quality, pen pressure, and ink flow, which are obliterated in photocopies.

The court adopted the reasoning in T. Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, holding that comparison based on photocopies is susceptible to mechanical error.

Statutory bars under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act regarding the admissibility of unstamped/unregistered documents, citing Bidyut Sarkar v. Kanchilal Pal.

Limits of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 preclude re-appreciating evidence unless there is patent illegality.

The court reasoned that a handwriting expert does not merely compare visual images but analyzes microscopic features that only exist in original ink-on-paper documents.

Since a photocopy is a secondary reproduction, it inherently lacks the indicia (pen lifts, pressure marks, rhythm) necessary for a dependable forensic conclusion.

Because the petitioner admitted the original was unavailable (having allegedly remained with the deceased landlord), the Rent Authority's refusal was not a technicality but a safeguard against unreliable evidence.

The respondent’s alleged oral admissions regarding the tenancy did not create an "indefeasible right" to expert examination if the foundational material was scientifically unsuitable.

The lower authorities exercised sound judicial discretion, especially given the potential inadmissibility of the document under the Stamp and Registration Acts.

The lower authorities’ orders did not suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error; the petition is dismissed.

The petitioner remains at liberty to prove the tenancy through other legally admissible evidence, such as rent receipts or oral testimony; no order as to costs was made.