The defect in recognizing the power of attorney was curable and did not prejudice the other party.

This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 17.11.2012 made in I.A.No.113 of 2012 in R.C.O.P.No.213 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a tenant and the respondent, Kumudavalli is the landlady. The Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P.No.213 of 2011 was filed by her under Section 10 (2) (i) and 14 (1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking eviction of the petitioner / tenant. In the said RCOP, Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.113 of 2012 was filed under Order III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order to recognise the father of the landlady, A.Arunachalam as power of attorney of the landlady and conduct the said RCOP proceeding.

3. As per the impugned order, the Court below permitted the landlady, the respondent herein to proceed with the RCOP, as petitioner through her said power of attorney. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision has been preferred by the petitioner / tenant.

4. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / tenant submitted that though RCOP was filed in the year 2011, the respondent herein filed the aforesaid Interlocutory Application only in the year 2012 to recognize her power of attorney agent under Order III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even at the time of filing the RCOP, the respondent could have obtained permission / leave of the Court but without getting any such order, the respondent / landlady is not entitled to seek an order, recognising the power of attorney deed and according to him, which amounts to ratifying the act of the landlady, which is not permissible in law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision, The Lakshmi Mills Co., Ltd., v. R.Ramajaam, reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Civil), wherein this Court (K.K.Sasidharan, J) has held as follows :

"15. The fourth respondent has file the Suit in his capacity as agent of respondents 1 to

3. Obviously, he was claiming to be an attorney within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of Order 3. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Order 3, Rules 1 and 2 along with Rule 16 of the Civil Rules of Practice clearly shows that the power of attorney has to be produced before the Trial Court and a specific order has to be passed by the Judge permitting the power agent to appear on behalf of the party. There is no question of permitting the party to represent the interest of another in a Civil Suit unless such authorization was produced before the Court. In case a person was permitted to represent the plaintiffs in a Suit without there being a document within the meaning of Order 3, Rule 2 (a) it would ultimately result in a serious situation to the plaintiffs inasmuch as any decree passed in such Suit would be binding on the plaintiffs on account of the permission granted by the Court to the agent to file the Suit and to conduct the proceedings."

5. Per contra, Mr.M.Sanjaiyen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / landlady submitted that even in the RCOP field by the respondent, the landlady has specifically stated in paragraph number 1 itself that her father A.Arunachalam was appointed by her as power of attorney to conduct the case. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to Document No.1 available in the list of documents, wherein copy of the power of attorney deed, dated 25.02.2008 is available, whereby the respondent / landlady has appointed her father, A.Arunachalam as her power of attorney, to conduct the case. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, after the counter being filed by the petitioner herein as tenant, the Interlocutory Application was filed by the respondent / landlady to recognise her power of attorney, that was ordered subsequently. According to the lea