INAM ALI Vs. SANDEEP VASUDEV & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is pending for hearing on the question of admission ever since the time of its presentation on 9.5.2016 before this Court either on the score of removing the defect or after removal of such defect, when the Court directed to deposit the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 3,08,000/-. Such order of this Court was challenged by way of filing the SLP No. 15437/2016 in the Hon'ble Apex Court which could not find favour in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.8.2016 and the tenant revisionist was directed to deposit the amount, as indicated above. Thereafter this revision could be taken up for hearing today in the Court and the learned Senior Counsel of the revisionist has submitted his arguments almost in details pointing out every miniscule irregularities and technicalities in issuing the tenancy termination notice dated 11.2.2013 as well as the authorisation letter entrusted by the owner of the demised premises (which is of two bedrooms and one drawing room in Dehradun city).

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has agitated the legality of this letter on the ground that it is unstamped and it should have been written either on the stamp of either Rs. 50/- or Rs. 100/- (whatever).

(3.) I think the said provision of the Civil Procedure Code does not conceive so. It has specially been made for the officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen, who cannot obtain leave, then they may authorise any person to sue and defend on their behalf in the Court. Such persons need not to fix any stamp.