1. - A reply to original application preferred by a landlord before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, pleading default in payment of rent and personal necessity was filed by the power of attorney of tenant. The contents of the reply, except in the verification clause nowhere mention about execution of power of attorney by the tenant in favour of the person who has signed the reply. In rejoinder, the original applicant termed the reply invalid being not supported by any deed executing power of attorney by the tenant. An application then moved by the tenant to bring power of attorney on record came to be rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 3.9.2009 and this order acquired finality on dismissal of the petition for writ, special appeal and special leave petition calling in question its correctness.

2. The Rent Tribunal by its order dated 5.3.2011 accepted the original application and granted a certificate for eviction of the tenant from the rented premises. To assail correctness of the order and certificate given, an appeal was preferred by the tenant before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur. The tenant again made an effort to bring power of attorney on record by submitting an application as per provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, but that too came to be rejected. The Rent Appellate Tribunal, however, by its judgment dated 24.10.2011 set aside the order and certificate dated 5.3.2011 and remanded the original application for its disposal afresh by examining a question as follows -

"Whether the actions taken by Shri Srigopal by depicting himself as power of attorney of non-applicant appellant, pertaining to which no objection was taken either by Rent Tribunal or by the applicant and was permitted by Rent Tribunal to cross examine the applicant's witnesses and permitted Shri Srigopal to adduce evidence on basis of his own knowledge and also being power of attorney and he was also cross examined by counsel for the applicant, can be treated as actions taken by or on behalf of the appellant non-applicant?"

3. In pursuant to the direction above the Rent Tribunal considered the question aforesaid and arrived at a conclusion that no instrument executing power of attorney in favour of Shri Srigopal was placed on record, hence no inference can be drawn that the advocate for tenant was appointed by the tenant herself. The Tribunal observed that the evidence can always be adduced in support of pleadings and there being no authority to Shri Srigopal to sign the pleadings on behalf of the tenant, hence, the evidence adduced by him is not admissible.

4. The Rent Tribunal though answered the question settled by the Rent Appellate Tribunal but did not give any judgment and also did not issue any certification of eviction. It appears that the Rent Tribunal treated the judgment dated 24.10.2011 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal as a partial remand only to the extent of adjudicating an issue, though the Rent Appellate Tribunal under its judgment aforesaid set aside the judgment and certificate dated 5.3.2011.

5. The tenant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 22.9.2012 preferred a petition for writ before this Court with assertion that the conclusion arrived is wrong as the Rent Tribunal failed to appreciate that the original applicant landlord did not raise any objection during the course of adjudication of the original application and accepted locus of the power of attorney holder. It was also emphasised that the Rent Appellate Tribunal after examining entire factual matrix arrived at a conclusion that the Rent Tribunal is required to examine the issue concerned afresh by taking into consideration certain relevant facts, but those have been ignored.

6. Learned Single Bench by judgment impugned accepted the writ petition with following consideration, observation and directions:-

"8. Having heard the learned counsels at some length and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 22/9/2012, this