DEVKI NANDAN Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 263-C-II to 266-C-II of 1984.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Devki Nandan filed an application for ejectment regarding house No. 326, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar City against Amar Singh Kalra, his tenant. The application was contested by the tenant. The trial Court accepted the application and passed an order of ejectment. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlord came up in revision to this Court against the order of the Appellate Authority. On the date of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the tenant. I, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner accepted the revision set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and restored that of the Rent Controller vide my order dated 2nd August, 1983. The tenant filed an application (C.M. 266-C-II of 1984) for setting aside the ex parte judgment and to decide the matter afresh after hearing him. In that civil miscellaneous, he moved an application (C.M. No. 263-C-II of 1984) for staying further proceedings. He moved another Civil Miscellaneous (No. 264-C-II of 1984) for condonation of delay in filing the (C.M. No. 266-C-II of 1984). He filed yet another application (C.M. No. 265-C-II of 1984) for dispensing with the certified copy of the order. The Civil Miscellaneous application are contested by the landlord.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Mehta that the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment has not been filed by a properly authorised person. He submits that Harmeet Singh filed an application as attorney of Amar Singh but he was not authorised to do so by the power by attorney dated 8th October, 1980. The learned counsel for the tenant has urged that in the power of attorney, the attorney was given all the powers in respect of the house in dispute, and therefore, the attorney had the right to file the application, he further submits that the act of the attorney was also later ratified by the tenant.