This is an appeal by the legal representatives of plaintiff Jogendra Singh Ghai for setting aside the judgment of the High Court in second appeal preferred by defendant Salikram, who is number represented by his legal representatives, whereby the decree of eviction passed by the lower appellate companyrt was reversed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
Jogendra Singh Ghai filed suit against Salikram for eviction from the suit property on the ground of default in payment of rent since 30th November, 1971 and also on the ground that the suit property is required for the purpose of companystruction which cannot be carried out without getting the house vacated.
Thereafter, the lower appellate companyrt companysidered the evidence which 3/ 3 included statements of PW 1 Nirmal Singh Ghai son and attorney of the plaintiff appellant , PW 2 Ganesh Ram Agrawal an attesting witness of Exhibit P2 and PW 3 handwriting expert M.R. Deshpande, and held that the plaintiff has been able to prove the landlord tenant relationship between him and the defendant as also the fact that the latter defaulted in payment of rent and accordingly, decreed the suit.
He also denied execution of rent numbere dated 30.05.1967 and pleaded that there did number exist landlord tenant relationship between him and the plaintiff.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate companyrt, Salikram preferred second appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 for examination of handwriting expert to prove the signature of the defendant on the rent numbere.
However, despite several opportunities given to him in a span of more than five years, the defendant failed to examine the handwriting expert.
By an order dated 16.04.1983, the lower appellate companyrt allowed the application and remitted the record to the trial companyrt with a direction that both the parties be given opportunity to examine handwriting experts.
Civil Revision preferred by Salikram against that order was dismissed by the High Court.
In the written statement filed by him, Salikram claimed that plaintiff was number owner of the house.
The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt in civil appeal number 17A/83.
In his plaint, the plaintiff averred that the defendant had been inducted as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.30/ and the latter had executed rent numbere dated 30.05.1967 Exhibit P2 .
After receipt of the record from the trial companyrt, the lower appellate companyrt accepted the defendants request for grant of further opportunity to examine handwriting expert and again remitted the record to the trial companyrt.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
When the appeal was fixed for final arguments, an application was filed by the defendant for examining handwriting expert, but the same was dismissed by the lower appellate companyrt vide order dated 15.12.1989 by observing that the applicant wanted to unnecessarily prolong disposal of the appeal.
Thereafter, plaintiff examined handwriting expert R. Deshpande PW 3 .
During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff Jogendra Singh Ghai died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
Defendant, Salikram was also given opportunity to examine handwriting expert, but he did number avail the same.
