Documents authenticated by Notaries Public of other countries should be presumed to have been duly notarized within the meaning of Section 85 of the Evidence Act.

( 1 ) THESE are two connected petitions arising out of two suits filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the petitioners in each of the two petitions for the eviction of the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are these: The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (in Writ Petition No. 5955 of 1979)filed two suits against the petitioners of the two petitions on the ground that they were the tenants of the respective accommodations and despite a notice determining the tenancy, they did not vacate the accommodation in dispute.

( 3 ) THE petitioners contested the two suits and denied the title and ownership of the plaintiffs. The petitioners asserted that they were themselves the owners of the property in dispute. They also denied having been served with any notice.

( 4 ) THE trial court accepted the version of facts as given by the petitioners and dismissed the two suits,

( 5 ) THE landlords filed Revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the same have been allowed. The learned District Judge allowing the Revisions has decreed the plaintiffs-respondents suits for the ejectment of the petitioners as well as for recovery of arrears of rent etc.

( 6 ) DR. R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the legality of the decrees passed by the learned District Judge decreeing the plaintiffs-respondents suits principally on two grounds. These are:

(1) The view taken by the learned District Judge that Notary public appointed and functioning in other countries, could be regarded as Notary Public within the meaning of Section 85 of the evidence Act, is manifestly unsustainable in law; (2) The finding of the trial court on the question whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiffs and the defendants was correct, and not being vitiated by any error of law was not amendable to review under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

( 7 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no merits in either of these two petitions.

( 8 ) AS both the petitions turn upon a common question of law, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 9 ) ELUCIDATING the first point, learned counsel contended that the power of attorney executed by badruddin respondent No. 4 in favour of Iftikhar Ahmad respondent No. 3, not having been authenticated by or executed before a Notary Public appointed for that purpose in this country as contemplated by the provisions of Notaries Act, the same could not be presumed to have been duly executed within the meaning of Section 85 of the Evidence Act. Counsel contended that the presumption which is embodied in Section 85 of the Evidence Act is available only to Notaries public as defined by the Notaries Act. In the present case, the Notary Public who has authenticated the power in question is of Pakistan, and inasmuch as it had not been proved by any evidence that there was any reciprocity between India and Pakistan in that behalf, the Notary public authenticating the power, could not be regarded as a Notary Public within the meaning of section 85 of the Evidence Act, and consequently the presumption under Section 85 of the Act could not apply.

( 10 ) IN support counsel placed reliance on two decisions, namely, D. Sardar Singh v. Seth pissumal Harbhagwandas Bankers (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 107, para 5) and AIR 1970 Manipur 57.

( 11 ) COUNSEL for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand urged that there was absolutely no warrant for giving a restricted meaning to the words "notary Public" in Section 85 of the evidence Act. The contention was that the provision of Notaries Act could not be imported into evidence Act,

( 12 ) IN support, learned counsel placed reliance on three decisions, namely, Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh (AIR 1971 SC 761 ). National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. World Science News (AIR 1976 Delhi 263 para 11) and In re: K. K. Roy (Private) Ltd. (AIR 1967 Cal 636 ).

( 13 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the partie