Charanjit Talwar, J.

( 1 ) AS far as the finding of the Competent Authority that the petitioner is earning more than Rs. 1000. 00 per month and as such has means to arrange for alternative accommodation in the event of his eviction, I am of the view that that finding cannot be reassessed or reappraised by this Court while considering the case under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) AS per the pleadings and the affidavit two facts, namely, (1) that Smt. Putli Devi was a co-owner and in that capacity was entitled to her share of the rent of the premises in dispute and (2) that the gene- ral power of attorney which she had executed in favour of the applicant (respondent herein) had been revoked by her on 11th September, 1968, clearly emerge. The reference by the respondent in the replication to an earlier suit wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties herein had been decided, is of no help in deciding the question whether the application was maintainable without the consent of the co-owner Smt. Putli Devi or without her joining as aparty. The general power of attorney executed by her in favour of Padam Chand Jain in the year 1956 stood revoked by the pub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document