MRS. KAILASH KHANNA Vs. SMT. LACHHMI GOOLARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the tenant under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is directed against a decision of the Rent Controller, Simla over -ruling her objection that the petition under Sec. 13 of the Act for her ejectment was not properly filed.

(2.) A petition was filed by the landlady against the tenant seeking her ejectment. In the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, it was pointed out that the petition was signed by Shri Balbir Singh as the landlady's attorney, and it was urged that the power of attorney was defective inasmuch as it was not registered and that it was a compulsorily registrable document by virtue of Sec. 17(1)(b) of the India Registration Act. The objection was over -ruled by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no assignment of any interest in any immovable property by the executant in favour of the attorney and therefore registration was not called for.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the document did call for registration and the Rent Controller erred in the view which he took. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties it seems to me that having regard to the terms of the document the Rent Controller is right. Sec. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act requires a compulsory registration of "non -testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property". The power of attorney in question merely authorises the attorney to look after the properties belonging to the executant at Simla, to take legal action against tenants for realisation of rents, for filing any ejectment application or a suit for possession or other legal proceedings necessary for realisation of rent and ejectment of the tenants. The executant has specifically stated in the document that the attorney 'is to act on my behalf and in my name'. It is clear that no interest has been transferred by the executant in favour of the attorney in the immovable properties, and consequently the document does not fall within the scope of Sec. 17(1)(b) of the Act.