Two grounds were raised before the Rent Controller. One was that the agent of the landlord who filed the petition for eviction of the tenant (Petitioner), was not authorised to file that petition. The second was that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller found both the points against the tenant. On appeal, the Appellate Authority went into the first question in some detail and came to the conclusion that, notwithstanding that the agent was armed with a general power, which power specifically included the right to take steps in eviction in civil, criminal, revenue or rent control Courts, that was not sufficient compliance with section 7 (7) of the Act. He thought that there should be a specific authorisation in respect of the proceedings launched by the agent. This matter was taken in revision before the learned District Judge who disagreed with the Appellate Authority and concluded that the general power-of-attorney conferred the necessary power upon the agent and was not against the tenor of section 7 (7) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned District Judge remanded the appeal to the Appellate Authority for disposal of the second qu