Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 482 (AP)

Aktar Begum v. Syed Azmathulla Hussaini

2003-03-25

T.CH.SURYA RAO

body2003
T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petitioner is a tenant. The respondent herein through his General Power of Attorney filed the eviction petition against the tenant on the premise of wilful default and subletting the premises in violation of the terms of the tenancy. The revision petitioner-tenant resisted that application on the ground that she used to pay the rents to the General power of Attorney as a landlord who collected rents without issuing the receipts while assuring that on the return of the landlord from the United States of America, he would pass necessary receipts getting them signed by the landlord. On the factual matrix, the learned Rent Controller after having appreciated the evidence was of the view that the tenant committed the default. Having been aggrieved by the said order dated 13-7-1994 passed in R. C. No. 531 of 1988 by the I Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad, the tenant filed the appeal in R. A. No. 534 of 1994. The learned additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad under the impugned order dated 9-7-2002 concurred with the finding of the learned Rent Controller and directed ultimately that the tenant should vacate the premises and deliver the same to the landlord-respondent within two months from the date of the judgment. Assailing the said order, the present civil revision petition has been tiled. ( 2 ) ON the crucial point of wilful default there have been no serious arguments. Having regard to the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the only point sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that here is a case where the respondent was represented by a General Power of Attorney holder by name Syed Ruhullah and the said Ruhullah disd during the pendency of the appeal and without informing the same to the Court the appeal was allowed to be disposed of. Therefore, there was no valid representation on the side of the respondent before the appellate authority and the Counsel had no authority to represent the respondent before the Appellate Court. Under such circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is vitiated. ( 3 ) IT may be mentioned here that the appellant is the tenant. She was assailing the order passed by the Rent Controller whereunder she was ordered to be evicted, on the premise of wilful default. Under such circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is vitiated. ( 3 ) IT may be mentioned here that the appellant is the tenant. She was assailing the order passed by the Rent Controller whereunder she was ordered to be evicted, on the premise of wilful default. On an appeal filed by her under the impugned judgment, the Appellate Court after having heard her confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. It is obvious, therefore, the impugned order was passed on merits. Even if the respondent remained ex parte, the order having been passed on merits could not have been vitiated. Having regard to the above factual scenario, the revision petitioner therefore, cannot validly express any prejudice or substantial injustice in the matter. ( 4 ) NOW coming to the point, here undisputedly the General Power of Attorney of the respondent-landlord died during the pendency of the appeal. The original rent control petition was validly initiated and prosecuted which culminated in the order of eviction. Even the appeal was also duly preferred by the General Power of attorney. There has been no grievance in that regard. What happened here was subsequent to the filing of the appeal and before the appeal was heard, in the period interregnum, the General Power of attorney holder died. It was a case where there was no valid representation on the side of the principal viz. , the respondent herein. Even if it is a case where the respondent was not properly heard, the order which was passed under the impugned judgment on merits could not have been vitiated. Therefore, the result cannot in any way be altered. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein seeks to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex court in Neki v Satnarain, AIR 1997 sc 1334 , wherein at paragraph 4 it was held thus:"the question, therefore, is: whether the appellant s default in the payment of rent for the year 1978 warranted his ejectment from the demised property? It is brought to our notice that the GPA of the respondent died and the legal representatives are not substituted; so the appeal is abated. It is brought to our notice that the GPA of the respondent died and the legal representatives are not substituted; so the appeal is abated. It is seen that since the proceedings were instituted by the GPA on the basis of the power given by the principal, the matter is always to be adjudicated only by or on behalf of the principal. Mere death of the agent does not cause any impediment in the way for disposal without his Legal representatives being brought on record and given notice. As per the statement of the Counsel, the landlord did not respond to his correspondence. On the facts in this case, we think that it is not necessary to adjourn the matter any further on the ground that the GPA of the first respondent died". ( 6 ) IT is obvious therefore, the death of the General Power of Attorney holder was of no consequence and it did not come as an impediment in the way of disposal of the appeal. It was further held by the Apex Court, that there was no need to bring to legal representatives of the deceased G. P. A. , on record. Therefore, the death of the GPA in the instant case after valid institution of the appeal before its hearing was of no consequence. The respondent was very much there on record as a party being represented by the general Power of Attorney. No valid representation on the side of the respondent even assuming for a moment as discussed hereinabove is of no consequence to the case of the appellant particularly when the judgment of the Rent Controller being assailed by her in the appeal. ( 7 ) I therefore, see no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. The revision petition therefore must fail. ( 8 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Tenant is directed to vacate the premises within two months from the date of the order.