K. HARILAL, J.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner in RCR 312/2017 advanced arguments challenging the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition itself. According to the learned counsel the Rent Control Petition was filed through a power of attorney holder without even producing the power of attorney. Therefore the Rent Control Petition should have been dismissed in limine. Secondly, it is contended that the power of attorney was not in the proper form. Therefore no presumption can be drawn as regards the genuineness of the power of attorney. Thirdly, it is contended that no order of eviction under Sec.11 (4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ('the Act' for short) would have been passed, unless the original landlord was examined to prove the bona fides of the need. The power of attorney holder is incompetent to swear on bona fides of the need and the non-examination of the landlord is fatal. Lastly, it is contended that the proposed construction is a joint venture comprised in 9.5 cents of property belonging to the petitioner and 4 cents of property belonging to one Nandan Menon, the brother of the petitioner. The said Nandan Menon is not a par