( 1 ) -THE petitioner-tenant in this revision under section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the Act ) challenges the judgment and order dated 21st May, 1980 of the Additional Controller directing his eviction under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the eviction petition was barred under Order 9 rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ).

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondent on 2nd February, 1977 had filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under Seccion 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25b of the Act. Leave to defend was granted. On 21st September, 1977 the Rent Controller dismissed the same.

( 3 ) THE respondent on 2nd January, 1978 filed a fresh petition against the petitioner under Section I l (l) (c) read with Section 25b of the Act alleg ing that he was the owner of the premises, which were let to the petitioner for residential purposes, that he required thpremises for the residence of himself and his family members and that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The premises consist of one room with common bath and latrine of the property at WZ 93/1, Gurunanak Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner after the giant of leave to defend filed his written statement alleging that the eviction petition was barred under Order 9 rule 9 read with Section 11 of the Code as the earlier eviction case No. E-104 of 1977 was dismissed on 21st September, 1977 by the court of Shri P. S. Sharma,. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The petitioner also challenged the bona fide requirement of the respondent. The Additional Controller by his judgment dated 21st May, 1980 held that the eviction petition was not barred under Order 9 rule 9 of the Code and the respondent was entitled to the order of eviction against the petitioner.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the present eviction petition is barred under Order 9 rule 9 read with Section 11 of the Code. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the previous eviction case was withdrawn on account of some technical defect. He submits that the eviction petition was barred neither under Order 23 nor Order 9 of the Code. In the previous eviction case under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act the following order was passed on 21st September, 1977 :

"present : None for the petitioner. Shri B. S. Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. The case has been called many times. The petitioner nor his counsel is present. Sham Sunder who claims that he is clerk of the petitioner s counsel is present. He submits that this petition has to be got dismissed as withdrawn and so the petitioner is not present. Seemingly there is no interest in pursuing the eviction petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed in default. Be consigned. "

( 5 ) THIS order shows that the clerk of the respondent s counsel appeared before the Controller and submitted that the landlord wanted to get the eviction petition withdrawn. From the order it is also apparent that there was no appearace on behalf of the landlord. Neither he nor his counsel was present and the eviction petition was therefore dismissed for default of appearance of the landlord. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that from the order it is clear that a representation was made to the Controller that the landlord wanted to withdraw the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that this is no representation for withdrawal. The alleged representation was made by the clerk of the counsel representing the landlord. It is not disputed that the clerk of the counsel was not a recognised agent within the meaning of Order 3 rule 2 of the Code. A person without holding a power of attorney on behalf of the respondent had no power to make any representation before the judicial authority. It must therefore