Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: RCT-132/2025 Manjeet Singh v. Sudesh Monga & Ors. Page 1 of 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No. 132/2025
CNR No. DLCT01-018149-2025
In the matter of:-
MANJEET SINGH,
S/o Sardar Singh,
R/o XII/7965, Ground Floor,
Kharia Mohalla, Roshanara Road,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi- 110007.
….Appellant
Versus
1. SUDESH MONGA,
W/o Sh. Om Prakash Monga,
R/o XII/7965 & 7966
Kharia Mohalla, Roshanara Road,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi- 110007 ….Respondent no. 1
2. SMT. SURENDER KAUR
W/o Sardar Singh
….Respondent no. 2
(Proforma respondent)
3. BABBY
….Respondent no. 3
(Proforma respondent)
4. RANI
….Respondent no. 4
(Proforma respondent)
5. GAURI
….Respondent no. 5
(Proforma respondent)
-- 1 of 6 --
RCT-132/2025 Manjeet Singh v. Sudesh Monga & Ors. Page 2 of 6
6. BHOLLY
….Respondent no. 6
(Proforma respondent)
7. KITTY
….Respondent no. 7
(Proforma respondent)
D/O (3-7) Sardar Singh,
R/o (2-7) XII/7965, Ground Floor,
Kharia Mohalla, Roshanara Road,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi- 110007
Date of filing of appeal : 24.11.2025
Date of arguments : 28.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.12.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Present appeal under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act
(hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”) has been filed challenging
the order dated 13.11.2025 vide which Ld. ARC has dismissed
the application filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act
read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Smt.
Sudesh Monga (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner/
respondent”) filed eviction petition against Smt. Surender Kaur
and others (hereinafter referred to as “respondent/appellant”)
under Section 14 (1)(e) of DCR Act with respect to property no.
XII/7965, Ground Floor, Kharia Mohalla, Roshanara Road, Subzi
Mandi, Delhi- 110007. Respondent / appellant got the leave to
defend. Written statement was filed. After completion of
pleadings, Ld. Trial Court fixed the case for evidence. After
-- 2 of 6 --
RCT-132/2025 Manjeet Singh v. Sudesh Monga & Ors. Page 3 of 6
completion of evidence of the petitioner / respondent, case was at
the stage of evidence of respondent/appellant. After the cross-
examination of RW3 Sh. T. S. Bindra, present application under
Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC
was moved by the respondents/appellants making request that the
document Ex PW2/A having signatures of Smt. Mahinder Kaur
be sent to FSL, Rohini alongwith admitted signatures of Smt.
Mahinder Kaur particularly rent receipts and Ex PW1/1 to
resolve the controversy.
3. Ld. ARC after hearing the arguments dismissed the
application vide order dated 13.11.2025 which is under challenge
in the present appeal.
4. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent. They do
not want to file any reply to the appeal. TCR was requisitioned.
5. I have heard Ld. counsel for the appellant, Ld. counsel for
the respondents and perused the record.
6. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that Late Sardar
Singh, father of the appellants entered into an agreement to sell
with respect to the suit premises with Smt. Mahinder Kaur, wife
of Late Sh. Harnam Singh and document in this regard was
executed. The original agreement was summoned from the
record where it was already exhibited as Ex PW1/B. To prove
that document, the appellant examined Sh. T. S. Bindra, who
appeared in the witness box and identified signatures of Smt.
Mahinder Kaur on the agreement to sell Ex RW2/A. On that
-- 3 of 6 --
RCT-132/2025 Manjeet Singh v. Sudesh Monga & Ors. Page 4 of 6
document RW3, Sh. T. S. Bindra identified the signatures of Smt.
Mahinder Kaur. During cross-examination by Ld. counsel for
petitioner / respondent disputed the signatures of Smt. Mahinder
Kaur on the document Ex RW2/A and Ex PW1/1. Ld. counsel
submitted that therefore, to resolve the dispute and to find out
whether Ex RW2/A bears signatures of Smt. Mahinder Kaur or
not, it is necessary that the document be sent to FSL with the
admitted signatures of Smt. Mahinder Kaur for the opinion of the
handwriting expert to find out whether it bears signatures of Smt.
Mahinder Kaur or not and that is why he moved the application
that the Court shall send the document Ex RW2/A alongwith
admitted signatures on Ex PW1/1 and the other documents such
as rent receipt to FSL to get the opinion. Ld. counsel submitted
that to decide the present controversy, it is necessary that the
opinion from an expert about signatures be taken. It is prayed
that it is help the Court to reach the just decision. The Ld. Trial
Court has not considered all these facts and dismissed the
application without going into the merits only on the assumption
that under the garb of this application, he wants to place on
record rent receipt. Ld. counsel submitted that he has no such
intention to place on record those rent receipts. His only intention
is to provide certain documents having admitted signatures of
Smt. Mahinder Kaur. If respondent can provide admitted
signatures of Smt. Mahinder Kaur for comparison, he has no
objection to that. It is prayed that order of Ld. Trial Court be set
aside and application be allowed.
-- 4 of 6 --
RCT-132/2025 Manjeet Singh v. Sudesh Monga & Ors. Page 5 of 6
7. Ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that it is forged
and fabricated document. There is no such document ever
executed by Smt. Mahinder Kaur in favour of the father of the
appellants. In fact under the garb of this application, appellants
herein want to file on record rent receipts, which they have no
right to file at such belated stage. It is submitted that Ld. ARC
rightly dismissed the application. There is no merit in the appeal,
same be dismissed.
8. After hearing arguments and going through the record, I
found that in the present case, the request is to send the document
Ex RW2/A to FSL with the admitted signatures particularly on
Ex PW1/1 and the rent receipts. The issue is whether this
document has been executed by Smt. Mahinder Kaur or not.
Though it is alleged that this document is forged and fabricated
by respondent herein but to reach that conclusion whether it is
forged or not it is necessary to find out whether signatures on the
documents are of Smt. Mahinder Kuar or not and to resolve that
controversy, it is required that either the person who has executed
that document be present or the person in whose presence the
document was executed and the person who can identify the
signatures be examined. To prove her signatures, appellants have
summoned RW3 who identified that Ex RW2/A bears signatures
of Smt. Mahinder Kaur. Despite this evidence, as still
respondent herein have disputed the signatures, therefore, to
resolve the controversy, opinion of the handwriting expert is
required. Hence, it is required that Court shall get the expert
opinion on the same. The Court has not considered these facts
-- 5 of 6 --
RCT-132/2025 Manjeet Singh v. Sudesh Monga & Ors. Page 6 of 6
and misdirected it by considering that under the garb of this
application, he wants to place on record, the rent receipts
whereas the request is only to send the documents with admitted
signatures of Smt. Mahinder Kaur to ascertain the execution of
document.
9. Keeping in view these facts, the order dated 13.11.2025 of
Ld. ARC is set aside with direction to decide the controversy as
to whether it is necessary for determining the issue before the
Court fo find out as to whether Ex RW2/A bears signatures of
Smt. Mahinder Kaur or not. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The matter is remanded back to decide the application under
Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC
afresh.
10. Trial Court record be returned alongwith copy of the
judgment.
11. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on 08th day of December, 2025
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(ak)
-- 6 of 6 --