( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal of the eviction petition filed by her in h. R. C. 904/01 on the file of the XII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, whereby the trial Court dismissed the eviction petition filed by her against the respondent Mylarappa under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka rent Act.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner stated to be the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises and the respondent is her tenant as per rental agreement dated 7-6-1999. The rent was Rs. 500/- per month for a period of two years from 7-6-1999 and thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-per month. The case of the petitioner is that her family consists of six members including her husband, three daughters and son. The present premises in occupation of the petitioner is an old building, hence the petitioner is intending to shift her family to the petition schedule premises. Since the respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of rents, a legal notice was issued, the same was returned unclaimed. However the certificate of posting was duly served on the respondent for which he has sent untenable reply. Therefore, the petitioner filed H. R. C. 904/2001. The trial court after recording the evidence and after hearing counsel appearing for both parties directed the parties to approach competent court of Civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights. Therefore, the petitioner has come up in this revision petition.

( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajanna and Sri r. B. Sadashivappa, for the respondent.

( 4 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Hanumanthappa, who was the original owner of the petition schedule premises has executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the respondent mylarappa and the said Mylarappa in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner herein, on 7-6-1999. As a power of attorney the respondent has got every right to sell the property on the basis of the terms and conditions of the power of attorney, therefore, the sale deed executed by the respondent is valid in the eye of law, thereafter the respondent himself has taken the premises on lease basis to that effect a rental agreement has been entered into on 7-6-1999, therefore, there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and the trial court has wholly erred in holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this court reported in the case of Mohammed alias podiya v. Assistant Commissioner, ILR 1993 kant 2306, wherein it has been held that :

"a power-of-attorney is an authority whereby one is authorised to act for another. Power of attorney is ordinarily construed strictly and general powers are interpreted in the light of the special powers, although they may include incidental powers necessary for carrying out the authority granted. Where a general power is given followed by specific powers, the generality of powers will have to be read in the light of the specific powers granted. Where all the rights and liabilities were made over by a power-of-attorney, such power is an agency coupled with interest. " further he relied on decision of the Apex court reported in the case of Seth Loon Karan sethiya v. Ivan E. John and others, AIR 1969 sc 73, wherein the Apex Court held that : "on the tenor of the document as well as from its terms (i) that the power given to the bank was a power coupled With interest and same was irrevocable in view of Section 202 of Contract Act. "

It is argued that under Section 202 of the Contract Act the agent has got every right to sell the property even after the death of power of attorney. It is argued that the respondent himself has filed an affidavit befo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document