JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Through this judgment, two Regular Second Appeals arising from a common judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court while deciding two cross-suits and a Civil Revision petition arising from proceedings under the Haryana Urban (control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, shall stand disposed of. The above Civil revision petition is an offshoot of the dispute in the Regular Second Appeals. The learned counsels representing the parties at ad-idem that all these cases can conveniently be decided together.

2. In the considered opinion of the Bench, the question which arises for consideration is:-

'If an allottee of the house, on receipt of the entire sale consideration, delivers possession to an agent while executing a registered General Power of Attorney in his favour, then whether, a subsequent sale deed executed by him in favour of agent's children after agent's death would be in continuity with the previous contract of agency so as to give superiority to the rights of the children?

3. In order to understand the inter-se relationship between the parties, it is appropriate to draw a small pedigree table:-

4. One suit was filed by Smt. Sheetal and Sh. Pardeep Chaudhary, children of Late Sh. Prem Singh with a prayer to grant decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent mandatory injunction. They claim to be joint owners in possession of House No.176, Sector 10, Faridabad, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 29.09.2010, executed by Sh. J.S.Luthra (the original allottee). It is their case that on 11.06.1980, Sh. J.S.Luthra executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of their father late Sh. Prem Singh with respect to the suit property and delivered its possession. Thereafter, late Sh. Prem Singh has been depositing the installments and house tax and a conveyance deed was registered by the Housing Board in favour of Sh. J.S.Luthra on 25.09.2000 through late Sh. Prem Singh in which Sh. Roop Singh was the witness. A non-encumbrance certificate was also issued by the Housing Board (allotting agency) in favour of late Sh. Prem Singh. It is claimed that the defendants were permitted to reside on the first floor as licencees which was terminated vide notice dated 13.10.2010. Sh. J.S.Luthra wrongly executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Roop Singh with respect to the property in question on 23.01.2001 and on that basis, Sh. Roop singh has executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Birwati (his wife) on 23.02.2010. They claimed that such General Power of Attorney and the sale deed are fraudulent.

5. In a joint written statement filed by Sh. Roop Singh and Smt. Birwati, the defendants claim that they have filed a previous suit. They claim that the property was allotted to Sh. J.S.Luthra on 13.05.1980 and he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of late Sh. Prem Singh. Thereafter, a conveyance deed of the property in question was registered on 25.09.2001 in favour of Sh. J.S.Luthra through late Sh. Prem Singh. Thereafter, Sh. J.S.Luthra executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Roop Singh on 23.01.2001 and Sh. Roop Singh, on the strength of the aforesaid attorney, executed a registered sale deed on 23.02.2010 in favour of Smt. Birwati for a total consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-. The Power of Attorney in favour of late Sh. Prem Singh was cancelled on 23.01.2001. The defendants, thus, claim that they are owners in possession of the property and the licence in favour of the plaintiffs, namely Smt Sheetal and Sh. Pardeep Chaudhary stands terminated and thus, they are liable to be evict