MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 9/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2014 passed by learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No. 78/2007(N) was dismissed and suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

3. As agreed by learned counsel for both the parties, this revision is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

4. The respondent instituted the T.S. No. 78/2007 under the Urban Areas Rent Control Act for ejectment of the defendant/appellant on the ground of defaulter. The defendant contested the suit denying all averments of the plaintiff. The defendant, however, in his written statement did not deny the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent/ plaintiff, though denied the factum of being defaulter. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?

(2) Is there any cause of action?

(3) Whether the plaintiff was ever the owner of the suit premises?

(4) Whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff?

(5) Whether the defendant is a defaulter?

(6) Whether the defendant is liable to the evicted from the suit premises?

(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing the parties, learned Munsiff decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

6. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, which also stood dismissed. Hence, the defendant/petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the propriety and legality of the judgment impugned.

7. Though initially several pleas were raised in the revision petition, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. D. Mozumder pressed only one issue being the maintainability of the suit. Mr. Mozumder submits, that the learned courts below acted without jurisdiction, while deciding the issue of maintainability of the suit, inasmuch as, the plaintiff failed to establish, that the person, namely, Smt. Nazrana Ahmed Islam, who represented the plaintiff company, purportedly as the director of the plaintiff company, had any authority to represent the plaintiff company and to sign and verify the plaint. In absence of such authority on the part of the person, who signed and verified the pleadings, the suit was not maintainable and therefore, the courts below by decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff fell in grave error. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel Mr. D. Mozumder placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(1) State Bank of Travancore vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd. 2011 SCC 524

(2) State of Rajasthan vs. Rao Raja Kalyan Singh (dead by his LRs.) 1972 (4) SCC 165

(3) Majgaonkar vs. Smt. Meenakshi, 2017 0 (Supreme) Mah 986

8. Refuting the above submission, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. K.N. Choudhury submits, that no plea was taken by the defendant in his written statement challenging the status of Mrs. Nazrana Ahmed Islam, who signed and verified the plaint on behalf of the company as director of the plaintiff. No factual foundation having been laid in the pleadings, the defendant is not entitled to raise such objection, on the maintainability of the suit in a revision petition, submits Mr. Choudhury.

9. Mr. Choudhury placing reliance on United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar, AIR 1997 (SC) 3 further submits that Order VI Rule 14 read with Order XXIX Rule 1 of CPC provides that any officer, referred to in Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC by virtue of his office, even in absence of any formal authority can sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the company. It is further submitted