Court No. 6 (265719) 07.09.2026 (A 4) (S. Banerjee) CO 2896 of 2026 Renu Suhasari Vs. Mira Gupta & Ors. Ms. Sipra Mazumdar Mr. Tanweer J. Mandal Ms. Somashree Dey …for the petitioner Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shaunak Ghosh Ms. Shreyashi Maity …for the opposite-parties On the prayer of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner to amend the typographical errors in the cause-title of this civil revision application, here and now. The supplementary affidavit filed by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is taken on record. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no. 1 and is directed against an order dated July 30, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 10th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 674 of 2024. 2 By the order impugned, the application filed by the petitioner praying for appointment of an expert to compare the signature of the petitioner in the documents dated June 11, 2025 and July 8, 2025 which were marked as Exhibits 5/2 and 9/2 respectively by a competent handwriting expert, stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the receipt dated June 11, 2025 contains forged signature of the petitioner. She further submits that the payment schedule dated July 8, 2025 also contains the forged signature of the petitioner. She submits that for the purpose of comparing the disputed signature of the petitioner with her admitted signature, a comparison by a handwriting expert is necessary. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite-parties submits that the document dated June 11, 2025 was marked as exhibit without objection. He further submits that the document dated July 8, 2025 is a payment schedule containing the signature of the petitioner. He submits that in the written statement the petitioner has not denied and disputed her signature in the rent receipts. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. 3 The opposite-parties filed a suit for recovery of khas possession by evicting the petitioner from the suit property and for arrear occupational charges and mesne profit. After going through the plaint this Court finds that the case made out in the plaint is that the license fee was increased from time to time and the rate at which the petitioner paid license fee for the last time is Rs. 15,500/- for a month. It has been further stated in the plaint that there is a dispute as to whether the petitioner is a licensee or a tenant in respect of the suit property and in order to avoid any unnecessary dispute the opposite-parties intend to proceed with the suit accepting the petitioner as a tenant in respect of the suit property under the Transfer of Property Act at a monthly rental of Rs. 15,500/- per month payable to according to English calendar month. The petitioner is contesting the suit by filing a written statement. The case of the petitioner in the written statement is that the petitioner is a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property at a monthly rental of Rs. 2,000/- payable according to English calendar month. After going through the plaint and the written statement this Court finds that it is the case of the opposite-parties that the petitioner is a tenant 4 governed under the Transfer of Property Act and on the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that she is a monthly tenant governed under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Induction of the petitioner into the suit property is not disputed, only the relationship between the parties whether licence or tenancy or under which statute the relationship of tenancy, if any would be governed. The learned trial judge was right in holding that for deciding such a dispute, appointment of an expert for the purpose of comparing of the signature of the petitioner in the said documents, is not necessary. That apart, the document dated June 10, 2025 which is a rent receipt bearing the signature of the defendant no. 1 was marked as Exhibit 5/2 without any objection. Though the document dated July 8, 2025 was marked as Exhibit 9/2 with objection as the petitioner raised an objection during marking of the said document, this Court finds that the same is only a payment schedule for the period of February 2015 to December, 2015. Considering the nature of the dispute involved in the suit, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the prayer for appointment of an expert for comparison of 5 the signature of the petitioner in the aforesaid documents. CO 2896 of 2026 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)