( 1 ) THIS revision under section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (. hereinafter called the Act ) is directed against the judg- ment and order dated August 25, 1980 of the Additional Controller dismissing the petitioners application under section 14 (l) (e) for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the eviction petition was filed by attorney and not by the landlords. The Additional Controller was of the view that the eviction application ought to have been filed by the landlords.

( 2 ) THE three petitioners namely, Yogesh Singh Sahota, Sant Avtar Singh Sahotaand amarjit Kaur Sahota have been residing in U. K. . They jointly and severally appointed Shri Hardev Singh Virdi, son of Shri Ajit Singh Virdi, 148/d Wazir Nagar, Delhi, as their lawful attorney to act on their behalf in their name. The petitioners are alleged to be the owners of property No. F 14/30 Model Town, Delhi occupied by the tenants. With a view to take eviction proceedings against the tenants occupying the said property the petitioners executed a general power of attorney on January 5, 1980. It is duly authenticated by a notary public. The said attorney Shri Hardev Singh Virdi in the name of the three petitioners filed the eviction petition on February 5, 1980 before the Rent Controller, Delhi. The attorney signed and verified the eviction application. The petition was to be tried under section 25b of the Act. The respondent filed an application for leave to defend. Besides other objections the respondent submitted that the person filing the petition was not validly appointed as attorney and that the power of attorney in his favour was also improper, illegal, bad in law and therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed. The abjection found favour with the Additional Controller and as already stated he dismissed the eviction petition. The petitioners have filed this revision under section 25b (8) of the Act.

( 3 ) THE general power of attorney dated January 5, 1980 executed by the three petitioners in favour of Shri Hardev Singh Virdi, their attorney is duly executed by the petitioners and authenticated by a notary public. Section 85 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under :

"section 85 : The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Counsel or Vice Counsel, or representative of the (Central Government), was so executed and authenticated. "

( 4 ) A photostat copy of the power of attorney dated January 5, 1980 is on the record. ; Under section 85 of the Evidence Act the court is bound to presume that the ower of attorney executed and authenticated before a notary public was duly executed and authenticated. In other words there is a presumption of valid execution and authentication of the power of attorney. The person objecting to the power of attorney is therefore required to allege and prove that the power of attorney was not duly executed or authenticated. In the present case there is nothing on the record to show that the power of attorney produced by the petitioners was not duly executed or authenticated by the notary public. I, therefore, hold that the general power of attorney dated January 5, 1980 is duly executed and authenticated by notary public within the meaning of Section 85 of the Evidence Act.

( 5 ) THE next question is whether the attorney is entitled to institute, sign and verify the eviction petition. Under the said power of attorney the attorney has been authorised to institute, sign and verify and petition for eviction against the tenants occupying the property of the petitioners. Order 3 Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are as under :

"rule 1: Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for