( 1 ) THE petitioner before this Court is the defendant of H. R. P. Suit No. 3888 of 1977 which is instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad by the respondent-plaintiff seeking his eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of acquition of suitable residential accommodation by the tenant after coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House rates Control Act. The suit was filed by one Vasumatiben Maganlal Manani as plaintiff through her Power of Attorneyholder - Rajabhai Manani, and it appears that Vakalat Patra as well as the plaint of the suit were signed by the Power of attorneyholder on behalf of Vasumatiben Manani.

( 2 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. Issues were, thereafter, framed by the trial Court and the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. The plaintiff, thereafter, gave purshis of closure of evidence on 13-4-1982 and the oral evidence of the defendant was also recorded and the suit was adjourned for arguments. Thereafter, on 10th June, 1982 the defedant moved an application to amend the written statement inter alia to introduce the defence that the plaint was not properly signed by the plaintiff as required under Order 6 Rule 14 of the C. P. Code and said amendment was granted by the trial Court. The trial Court thereafter framed two following additional issues :"6 (A) Whether the defendant proves that the plaint deserves to be rejected as contended in Para 4-A of the Written Statement ? if Yes 6 (b) Whether the plaintiff proves that the signatory of the plaint is entitled to sign and verify the plaint on her behalf as her attorney ?"

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, after recording further evidence, the trial Court by judgment and decree, dated 7th July, 1982 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and recorded the finding on issue No. 6 (a) against plaintiff and issue No. 6 (b) in favour of plaintiff.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by said judgment and decree passed by the Court of Small causes, the plaintiff-landlady preferred Appeal being Appeal No. 314 of 1982 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court and while such appeal was pending, she tendered an application at Exh. 29, dated 15th July, 1991 to permit her to sign the plaint and Vakalat Patra in place of the signature affixed by her Power of attorneyholder.

( 5 ) SUCH application made by the plaintiff-landlady was resisted by the tenant vide his reply at Exh. 67 firstly on the ground that such a permission cannot be granted at such a belated stage and secondly on the ground that despite the fact such a specific objection was taken in the written statement by amendment the landlady has not cured the defect or irregularity in the pleading and has invited a finding adverse to her and when such a finding is recorded, it is not permissible to move such an application which has the effect of rendering the finding of the small Causes Court ineffective or meaningless.

( 6 ) THE Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by its judgment and order, dated 6-9-1995 allowed the application of the plaintiff and allowed the plantifflandlady to sign the plaint and Vakalat Patra. It is this order passed by the Appellate bench of the Small Causes Court which is under challenge before this Court at the instance of the petitioner-tenant.

( 7 ) MR. Amar Bhatt, learned Counsel for Mr. S. N. Soparkar appearing for the petitioner has vehemently urged before this Court that the application of this nature at the stage of appeal ought not to have been granted as the effect of granting such application is to render the findings reached by the trial Court ineffective and meaningless. Secondly, he submitted that it would render nugatory the positive defence taken by the tenant to the effect that the plaint was not properly signed, and hence, such plaint was liable to be rejected, more so, because such contention was specifically raised, issue was specifically framed, and finding on such issue was already spec