K.B.K. Vasuki, J.

1. The tenants are the petitioners and the landlord is the respondent herein. The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders made in I.A. No. 109 of 2005 in RCA. No. 31 of 2004 and RCA. No. 31 of 2004 respectively by the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. For the sake of convenience, the parties are, as per their rank in the Rent control proceedings, referred to in these Civil Revision Petitions.

2. Few facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows :

"The petition in HRCOP. No. 49/1999 was filed by one Joseph Pouvatchy seeking eviction of the tenants. During the pendency of the petition, the landlord came forward with IA.411/1999, permitting him to be represented by and through his power of attorney by name Dr. Claude Marius under registered General Power of Attorney dated 10.02.1999 to appear, plead, defend, give evidence and to conduct the proceedings of HRCOP. The application was filed along with the original power of attorney dated 10.02.1999 registered on the same day and the same was after hearing both sides, allowed on 24.12.1999. Thereafter, the Rent Control proceedings was originally conducted by the power of attorney on behalf of the landlord. As a matter of fact, the power of attorney was examined as PW1 on behalf of the landlord in HRCOP. 49/1999. The RCOP was after due contest, dismissed on 28.2.2001. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord represented by his power of attorney filed RCA.32/2001. The appellant/landlord was in the cause title of RCA.32/2001 described as Joseph Pouvatchy represented by his power of attorney Claude Marius. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction by granting two months time to the tenants to vacate and hand over the premises. The Eviction order passed by the learned Appellate Authority was challenged by the tenants by way of CRP. 3898/2001 before this court, wherein also, the landlord/respondent was shown as represented by his power of attorney Claude Marius. The Civil Revision Petition was, by order dated 19.12.2001, dismissed thereby confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Even thereafter, the tenants did not come forward to vacate the premises, which compelled the landlord to file EP. No. 41/2001 for executing the decree of eviction."

3. Pending Execution Petition, one of the tenants by name Jayaraman came forward with the suit in OS. 103/2002 in respect of a portion of the property, which is the subject matter of RCOP, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/landlord from entering into and dealing with the suit property in any manner. The relief sought for in the suit is mainly on the ground that the plaintiff therein is the absolute owner of the suit property by adverse possession, having open, continuous, uninterrupted and long possession adverse to the knowledge of all and the same is not covered by the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Execution Petition filed is by newly incorporating the suit item. Pending EP.41/2001 and OS. 103/2002, the landlord came forward with IA.521/2002 for amending the schedule of property in HRCOP by incorporating the omitted portion of the property which is the subject matter of HRCOP. The learned Rent Controller, having found that the omission was due to typographical error, allowed the application as prayed for. In pursuance of the same, the description of the property in Rent Control decree was amended. Aggrieved against the order of amendment, the tenants filed RCA.31/2004. The landlord entered appearance in RCA through his power of attorney Claude Marius. The tenants also came forward with I.A. 109/2005 to reject the vakalat filed in RCA.31/2004 on behalf of the landlord by contending that the vakalat was not signed by the landlord and the signature contained in the vakalat is that of a third party, who was not authorised to represent the