VIJAY SHANKER SINGH Vs. MANJU SAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) The Eviction Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the ground that the Special Power of Attorney which was filed before the Additional Rent Controller, did not give power to institute petition on behalf of said Ram Rati Devi as power was limited only to proceed with the proceeding pending before the Additional Rent Controller.

(3.) When the appeal of the appellant came before the First Appellate Court i.e. the Rent Control Tribunal, an application was filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC staling, inter alia, that on account of improper legal advice tendered by the previous Counsel and on account of communication gap with him, the registered Power of Attorney executed by Ram Rati Devi could not be proved although the said document was a registered document. It was prayed that the Appellate Court may allow to file the same and same may be proved before the Appellate Court. Argument of the appellant did not find favour before the Rent Control Tribunal, Tribunal dismissed the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code upholding the order of the Additional Rent Controller. Though there is no dispute with the proposition of law that before the Additional Rent Controller it was not pleaded by the appellant that the Power of Attorney which he wanted to produce before the Rent Control Tribunal was not within his power to produce. It is also not disputed that aid of Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code cannot be taken to fill up gap and lacunae in the pleading, as has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent.