In a petition filed before the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of an order dated 20-11-2025 by the Rent Authority, Etah, in a case instituted under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, as affirmed by a judgment and order dated 07-01-2026, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava refused to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the petition for lacking merit.
The petitioner’s application seeking examination by a handwriting expert of the disputed signatures appearing on a photocopy of the alleged rent agreement dated 22-09-2005, by comparison with the admitted signatures of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent, was rejected by the aforesaid orders. The petitioner’s case was that a rent agreement dated 22-09-2005, subsequently notarised on 16-12-2005, was executed for the shop in dispute, after which, the petitioner entered into possession, established his tailoring business, and continued to occupy the premises as a tenant upon payment of rent.
The respondent instituted proceedings before the Rent Authority on 29-04-2024 seeking the petitioner’s eviction. 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 available on the rent receipts and other admitted documents. The application was rejected principally on the ground that the original rent agreement had not been produced and that the proposed comparison was sought to be undertaken solely on the basis of a photocopy.
Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Tribunal, which affirmed the order of the Rent Authority, holding that an expert opinion founded upon a photocopy could not furnish dependable scientific assistance for adjudication.
ALSO READ: Salary Income Cannot Be Excluded While Determining Non-Creamy Layer Status: Kerala High Court
The petitioner submitted that during deposition, the respondent admitted that he was acquainted with and could identify the signatures of his deceased father. The respondent contended that scientific comparison cannot ordinarily be undertaken on a photocopy since line quality, pen pressure, ink flow, stroke formation, and other microscopic features are not preserved.
The principal question that arose for consideration was whether disputed signatures appearing on a photocopy of an alleged rent agreement could legitimately be referred for scientific examination by a handwriting expert in the absence of the original document. The Court stated that the opinion of a handwriting expert is merely advisory in character and that the Court is not bound by said opinion.
It was stated that a handwriting expert does not merely compare the visual appearance of letters, but examines line quality, pen pressure, rhythm, speed, natural variations, pen lifts, retouching, and ink flow, which are ordinarily discernible only from the original writing. The Court stated that a photocopy merely reproduces the visual image and inevitably obliterates these intrinsic forensic features, which means that an opinion founded solely upon the photocopy would be less dependable.
The Court highlighted that 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. It was stated that the Court is not required to direct an expert examination where the material itself is inherently unsuitable for reliable scientific comparison. The Court said that the Rent Authority could not be faulted for concluding that the proposed exercise would not materially assist the adjudicatory process.
The Court stated that in the present case, the discretion exercised by the authorities neither suffered from perversity nor was there any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227. It was said that the rejection by the Rent Authority and affirmation of the same by the Rent Tribunal were manifestly relevant considerations bearing directly upon the feasibility and evidentiary worth of the proposed expert examination.
It was noted that the rejection of the application did not foreclose the petitioner’s right to establish the tenancy through other legally admissible evidence like rent receipts or oral evidence, as the impugned orders merely declined one particular mode of proof.
Thus, the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.
