Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. ABDUL WAHAB
G. Ganapathy Puratchi Dasan
Versus
Y. Sudhakar Reddy represented by power Agent B.N. Anand
C.R.P. No. 2520 of 1997
Decided On :Decided On : 15-09-1997
TRANSFER OF SUIT - SECTION 24, C.P.C. - POWER OF ATTORNEY - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS - WHETHER THE POWER OF ATTORNEY GRANTED FOR R.C.O.P. NO. 208 OF 1990 AUTHORISED THE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE RENT CONTROL PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, filed a petition under Section 47, C.P.C. before the executing court, contending that the original order passed in R.C.O.P. 208 of 1990 was null and void since the order was obtained by a power of attorney without producing a proper power of attorney. The petitioner also filed a petition before the Execution Court for direction to produce the original power of attorney. The Executing Court straightaway posted the matter for orders without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Hence he filed a petition before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras for transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the power of attorney granted for R.C.O.P. No. 208 of 1990 did authorise the power of attorney to institute rent control proceedings. The court also found that the petitioner had already raised the same contention before the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court, and that the matter had already been dealt with by the three courts.
Issues: 1. Whether the power of attorney granted for R.C.O.P. No. 208 of 1990 authorised the power of attorney to institute rent control proceedings? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to produce evidence on the aspect that the original power of attorney in R.G.O.P. 208 of 1990 did not authorise the agent to institute eviction proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of attorney granted for R.C.O.P. No. 208 of 1990 did authorise the power of attorney to institute rent control proceedings. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to an opportunity to produce evidence on the aspect that the original power of attorney in R.G.O.P. 208 of 1990 did not authorise the agent to institute eviction proceedings, as the matter had already been dealt with by the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
1. This Civil Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 7.8.1997 in Transfer O.P. No. 81 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.
2. The petitioner is a tenant. R.C.O.P. No. 208 of 1990 was filed against him. On 16.4.1993 the said petition was ordered. As against the same one appeal was also preferred in R.C.A. No. 948 of 1993. The appeal was dismissed. As against the said order C.R.P. No. 2960 of 1996 was preferred by the petitioner and there again, he was unsuccessful as it could be seen from the order dated 21.2.1996 in CRP 2960 of 1996.
3. After he failed in the eviction proceedings, the respondent filed E.P. No. 131 of 1997 for delivery of possession. At that stage, it appears that he filed a petition M.P. No. 196 of 1997 requesting to stay the proceedings since he wanted to move the Supreme Court. Even though time was granted till 30.4.97 there was no proceeding initiated in Supreme Court. Instead of moving the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed on 7.4.1997 a petition under Section 47, C.P.C. before the executing court.
4. The contention urged by the petitioner in S. 47, C.P.C. Petition is that the original order passed in R.C.O.P. 208 of 1990 is null and void since the order has been obtained by a power of Attorney without producing a proper power of Attorney. According to the petitioner, the power of Attorney produced before the Rent Control Authority was to give evidence and not to initiate any proceedings He also filed a petition before the Execution Court for direction to produce the original power of attorney. The said petition is M.P. No. 289 of 1997.
5. After the petition S. 47, C.P.C was filed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner The Executing Court straightaway posted the matter for orders. Hence he filed a petition before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras for transfer. The Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras rejected his application for transfer by his order dated 7.8.1997. Aggrieved by the same, he has moved this Court in the present C.R.P. The Respondents contention is that the very same contention, namely power of attorney produced before the Rent Control Authority at the time of initiating the proceedings for eviction is not valid, was raised in the Rent Control proceeding before the Appellate Court as well as before the High Court, when the matter was pending before it by way of Civil Revision Petition as mentioned above. Further, in the counter which was filed before the Chief Judge, Small Causes, opposing the transfer petition, it is stated that pursuant to the petition filed by the petitioner in M.P. 289 of 1997, the original was produced before the Executing court and it was also perused by the counsel for the petitioner and the Executing court recorded a note also on this aspect stating that the tenants counsel on a perusal of the original power of attorney was satisfied with reference to the execution of the power of Attorney.
6. After going though the allegations contained in the petition as well as the counter, the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, has rejected the application for transfer.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner once again urged that the power of attorney granted for R.C.O.P. No. 208 of 1990 did not authorise the power of attorney to institute Rent Control proceedings. But it is only to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner therein.
8. In this court, the learned counsel for the respondent produced the original power of Attorney dated 20.11.1989. The same has been executed before the Attached, Embassy of India, Quwait. It is also stated that it was signed in the presence of the “Attached” and the seal of Embassy of India is also attached in the original power of Attorney. The original was also perused by the counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner after perusal of the same, the power of attorney does not authorise to file Rent C
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
