JUDGMENT.— These four civil revision petitions arise out of a common order made by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in an application filed by the petitioners as landladies for evicting the four tenants, each of whom is a respondent in each of these civil revision petitions, on the ground that the petitioners required the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority went into the question whether the petitioners satisfied all the prescriptions laid down in section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), and the concurrent finding of fact is that the petitioners have already established and manifested their bona fide intention to demolish the building and put up a construction as soon as they obtain delivery of possession of the demised premises. This concurrent finding of fact has not been challenged before me by learned counsel for the respondents. But the question whether the petition filed by the power-of-attorney agent of the landladies was maintainable in law was the main subject which was discussed by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Whilst the Rent Controller held that the petitions were maintainable, and granted an order for eviction, since he was satisfied that the landladies request through their power-of-attorney agent Was bona fide, the Appellate Authority came to a different conclusion. The Appellate Authority was of the view that, even though the petition filed under section 14 (1) (b) of the Act was reflective of the bona fide of the landladies, yet the undertaking as required under section 14 (2) (b) of the Act given by the power-of-attorney agent was incompetent, as the penal consequences for disobedience of the undertaking as provided under section 33 (3) (b) of the Act cannot be availed of against the landladies, since they did not personally give the undertaking themselves. In short the opinion expressed by the Appellate Authority was that, even if it could be assumed that the power-of-attorney agent, who filed the petition, could obtain an order of eviction, he was not competent to give an undertaking as required under section 14 (2) (b) of the Act and in that sense the application for eviction was not maintainable. It is as against this order of dismissal of the petitions on the above legal ground the present civil revision petitions have been filed by the landladies represented by their power-of-attorney agent.

2. In order to appreciate the only contention raised before me, it is necessary to refer to the salient provisions of the power-of-attorney given by each of the landladies, who are co-owners, to the person who presented the petition in that capacity. The power-of-attorney has been registered and it was produced before the Rent Controller and the two deeds have been marked as Exhibit’s P-16 and P-17. As the recitals in each of the power-of-attorney are the same, it is sufficient to note one of them and the recitals therein. The power is a general one. Under clause (1) the attorney is authorised to let the property to a tenant at such rates as may be favourable. Under clause (2) he is authorised to file petitions for fixation of fair rent, for eviction of tenants before the competent authorities and further prosecute the proceedings in appeals before the statutory functionaries. Clause (9) enables the attorney to carry out repairs, remodel or renovate, reconstruct or alter all or any of the landlady’s properties whenever necessary and for that purpose incur the necessary expenses and to engage qualified workmen to carry out the aforesaid items of work. In the last paragraph of the power, the landlady agrees to ratify and confirm all the acts, deeds and things which the said attorney may jlawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of the power-of-attorney, as if such acts, deeds and things were done by the landlady herself in her own person.

3. The definition of land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document