YOGESH SINGH SAHOTA Vs. NIRANJAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (.hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judg- ment and order dated August 25, 1980 of the Additional Controller dismissing the petitioners' application under section 14(l)(e) for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the eviction petition was filed by attorney and not by the landlords. The Additional Controller was of the view that the eviction application ought to have been filed by the landlords.

(2.) The three petitioners namely, Yogesh Singh Sahota, Sant Avtar Singh Sahotaand'Amarjit Kaur Sahota have been residing in U.K.. They jointly and severally appointed Shri Hardev Singh Virdi, son of Shri Ajit Singh Virdi, 148/D Wazir Nagar, Delhi, as their lawful attorney to act on their behalf in their name. The petitioners are alleged to be the owners of property No. F 14/30 Model Town, Delhi occupied by the tenants. With a view to take eviction proceedings against the tenants occupying the said property the petitioners executed a general power of attorney on January 5, 1980. It is duly authenticated by a notary public. The said attorney Shri Hardev Singh Virdi in the name of the three petitioners filed the eviction petition on February 5, 1980 before the Rent Controller, Delhi. The attorney signed and verified the eviction application. The petition was to be tried under section 25B of the Act. The respondent filed an application for leave to defend. Besides other objections the respondent submitted that the person filing the petition was not validly appointed as attorney and that the power of attorney in his favour was also improper, illegal, bad in law and therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed. The abjection found favour with the Additional Controller and as already stated he dismissed the eviction petition. The petitioners have filed this revision under section 25B(8) of the Act.

(3.) The general power of attorney dated January 5, 1980 executed by the three petitioners in favour of Shri Hardev Singh Virdi, their attorney is duly executed by the petitioners and authenticated by a notary public. Section 85 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under :