AKTAR BEGUM Vs. SYED AZMATHULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is a tenant. The respondent herein through his General Power of Attorney filed the eviction petition against the tenant on the premise of wilful default and subletting the premises in violation of the terms of the tenancy. The revision petitioner-tenant resisted that application on the ground that she used to pay the rents to the General Power of Attorney as a landlord who collected rents without issuing the receipts while assuring that on the return of the landlord from the United States of America, he would pass necessary receipts getting them signed by the landlord. On the factual matrix, the learned Rent Controller after having appreciated the evidence was of the view that the tenant committed the default. Having been aggrieved by the said order dated 13-7-1994 passed in R.C. No.531 of 1988 by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the tenant filed the appeal in R.A. No.534 of 1994. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad under the impugned order dated 9-7-2002 concurred with the finding of the learned Rent Controller and directed ultimately that the tenant should vacate the premises and deliver the same to the landlord-respondent within two months from the date of the judgment. Assailing the said order, the present civil revision petition has been tiled.

(2.) On the crucial point of wilful default there have been no serious arguments. Having regard to the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the only point sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that here is a case where the respondent was represented by a General Power of Attorney holder by name Syed Ruhullah and the said Ruhullah disd during the pendency of the appeal and without informing the same to the Court the appeal was allowed to be disposed of. Therefore, there was no valid representation on the side of the respondent before the appellate authority and the Counsel had no authority to represent the respondent before the Appellate Court. Under such circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is vitiated.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the appellant is the tenant. She was assailing the order passed by the Rent Controller whereunder she was ordered to be evicted, on the premise of wilful default. On an appeal filed by her under the impugned judgment, the Appellate Court after having heard her confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. It is obvious, therefore, the impugned order was passed on merits. Even if the respondent remained ex parte, the order having been passed on merits could not have been vitiated. Having regard to the above factual scenario, the revision petitioner therefore, cannot validly express any prejudice or substantial injustice in the matter.