This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4387/2005 dated 21.8.2009 on the file of the 44th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The appellant was the defendant in the suit and the respondent was the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court.

2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property and for certain other reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is employed at United State of America. As such, he has executed a power of attorney dated 4.2.2004 in favour of his father C.M.Mallikarjunaiah. Acting on the said power of attorney, C.M.Mallikarjunaiah purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant, for and on behalf of the plaintiff by a deed of sale dated 20.7.2004. On the same day, the plaintiff took the possession of the suit schedule property through his attorney. On 30.07.2004, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike transferred the Katha of the property in his favour. The defendant requested the plaintiff to lease the suit schedule property for a short duration. Therefore, the plaintiff represented by his attorney executed a rent agreement in favour of the defendant dated 22.7.2004. The rent agreed upon was Rs.10,000/- per month. The defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards security deposit to the plaintiff. The duration of the lease was from 23.7.2004 to 31.12.2004. It is further contended that the defendant did not pay the rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. On the other hand, he used to credit a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the bank account of C.M.Mallikarjunaiah towards rents. Though the time under the agreement expired on 31.12.2004, the defendant failed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requires the property for the use and occupation of his father who is residing in a rented premises. The plaintiff got issued a notice dated 20.4.2005 terminating the tenancy of the defendant. Since the defendant failed to comply with the demand made in the notice, he has filed the suit for the reliefs stated above.

3. In response to the summons issued by the Court, the defendant has entered appearance and has filed hi written statement. He has admitted the tenancy of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/-. It is his case that he has not breached any of the conditions of the rent agreement. The notice issued terminating the tenancy is not in accordance with law. In paragraph 13 of the written statement, he has contended that the general power of attorney holder has no knowledge of the case. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit through his general power of attorney holder. He has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below has framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the termination of tenancy of the defendant is valid and is in accordance with law?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property from the defendant?

(iii) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not properly valued and proper court fee is not paid?

(iv) Whether the defendant proves that the suit filed by PA Holder is not maintainable?

(v) What order?”

5. The power of attorney holder of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 have been marked in his evidence. The defendant has not let in any evidence. On appreciation of the materials on record, the court below has held that the notice terminating the tenancy issued by the plaintiff is valid and that the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The court below has further held that the suit filed by the plaintiff through his power of attorney holder is maintainable. The defendant was directed to vacant and hand over vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff within a peri