MAHINDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL Vs. PADAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As far as the finding of the Competent Authority that the petitioner is earning more than Rs. 1000.00 per month and as such has means to arrange for alternative accommodation in the event of his eviction, I am of the view that that finding cannot be reassessed or reappraised by this Court while considering the case under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) As per the pleadings and the affidavit two facts, namely, (1) that Smt. Putli Devi was a co-owner and in that capacity was entitled to her share of the rent of the premises in dispute and (2) that the gene- ral power of attorney which she had executed in favour of the applicant (respondent herein) had been revoked by her on 11th September, 1968, clearly emerge. The reference by the respondent in the replication to an earlier suit wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties herein had been decided, is of no help in deciding the question whether the application was maintainable without the consent of the co-owner Smt. Putli Devi or without her joining as aparty. The general power of attorney executed by her in favour of Padam Chand Jain in the year 1956 stood revoked by the public notice dated 11th September, 1968. Thereafter, Padam Chand Jain was not entitled to act on her behalf. The general power of attorney was revoked in accordance with law. The finding of the Competent Authority, therefore, that that power of attorney remains in force and, therefore, the applicant was entitled to file a suit as a sole landlord, is perverse. It is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The result is that I accept this petition and set aside the impugned order passed on 15th May, 1973 by the Competent Authority and remand the matter to that Authority for reconsideration of the case in accordance with the observations made by me above and also in accordance with the provisions of law.