M. VETRIVEL Vs. SHEK THAVUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD , Mr. A. Jararamachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. J. Maria Roseline, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE defendant has filed the above civil revision petition challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A. No. 2/2012 on the file of Subordinate Court, Devakottai confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 13/2011 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the landlord was represented by the power agent in the RCOP and that landlord has not entered the box and it was only the power agent who has deposed the evidence on the side of the landlord before the Rent Controller. Therefore, non examination of the landlord in the Rent Control Original Petition is fatal to the case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment reported in, CDJ 2005 SC 055 (Janki Vashdeo Bhojani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors.), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the power of attorney holder have rendered some acts in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal. But, he cannot depose for the acts done by the Principal and not by him. The contention now raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is being raised for the first time in the proceedings. The said contention was not raised neither before the Rent Controller nor before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. That apart it is also brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned counsel for the respondent that the power of attorney is none other than the brother of the petitioner. When the tenant has not raised the said plea before the Courts below, he cannot be allowed to raise such plea for the first time before this Court stating that the examination of the power of attorney on behalf of the landlord is fatal to the case. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The tenant had admitted the agreed monthly rent of Rs. 650/ -. The Courts below while ordering eviction, rightly held that the petitioner/tenant failed to prove that he was regularly paying monthly rent to the landlord even after dismissal of RCOP No. 28 of 2009. Though the tenant had contended that he paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - as advance for the purchase of the property, he has not produced any document to prove the said contention. The Courts below rightly held that the tenant had wilfully defaulted in paying monthly rent and rightly ordered eviction. I do not find any error of irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.