KERALA HAIR DRESSES Vs. D KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is aggrieved over the admission of the RCOP. No. 1015 of 2005 made by the learned Rent Controller by accepting the power of attorney document signed by the respondents.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: The respondents have filed RCOP. No. 1015 of 2005 along with a batch of RCOP. Nos:1014, 1013, 1016,1017,1018,1019 and 1020 of 2005 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai through their power of attorney Mrs. Munaga Sukumari against the petitioner herein. The respondents have also filed M. P. Nos. 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599 of 2005 under section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act to pay the arrears of rent. The said petitions were dismissed.

(3.) THE further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the power of attorney has not been executed properly and therefore the said R. C. O. Ps filed before the learned Rent rent Controller by the power of attorney, are not maintainable. THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that the 5th respondent Mrs. Lakshmi Raju is residing at Thandepalli Goodam at Andra pradesh, the 6th respondent Mrs. Hemalatha is residing at Bangalore, 7th respondent, Mrs. Nirmala is residing at Secunderabad and the 8th respondent, mr. A. V. R. K. Kumar is residing at Vishakapattinam and therefore they could not have signed on the same day along with other respondents.