Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The landlady is the petitioner before this Court. She has remained concurrently unsuccessful before the learned authorities below. An ejectment petition was filed by her against her tenant Durga Narain. The ground of ejectment was non-payment of rent. On the first date of hearing, a tender of rent as claimed by the landlady was made on behalf of the tenant by his counsel Shri Parshotam Lal. 2. The aforesaid tender was accepted by the landlady under protest. She challenged that in fact the tender has not been made by the authorised person and, therefore, was invalid. 3. The learned Rent Controller found it as a fact that the power of attorney was duly signed by the aforesaid tenant Durga Narain in favour of Shri Purshotam Lal, Advocate. Accordingly the tender made by him on behalf of the tenant was taken to be a valid tender. An appeal was taken up against the landlady before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The tender made on behalf of the tenant was held as valid. The landlady approached this Court through the present petition. 4. I have heard Shri Yogesh Dutt, the learned counsel for the landlady. 5. Shri Dutt has reiterated the various pleas raised by the landlady before the authorities below. It has been contended that in fact Durga Narain tenant was illiterate person but the vakalatnama (power of attorney) on the basis of which Shri Parshotam Lal was appointed as an Advocate, to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the tenant was shown to be signed in English. On that basis the learned counsel has maintained that apparently the tender made by Shri Purshotam Lal, Advocate was not a valid tender. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find myself unable to agree with the same. It is not disputed that the tender was made for and on behalf of tenant Durga Narain. Shri Parshotam Lal, Advocate, merely acted for and on behalf of Durga Narain. At any stage, Durga Narain has not challenged the authority of the aforesaid Advocate to tender the rent. However, I find myself unable to agree with the same. It is not disputed that the tender was made for and on behalf of tenant Durga Narain. Shri Parshotam Lal, Advocate, merely acted for and on behalf of Durga Narain. At any stage, Durga Narain has not challenged the authority of the aforesaid Advocate to tender the rent. However, both the learned authorities below concurrently held that Durga Narain has validly appointed Parshotam Lal, as an Advocate to appear for him in the rent proceedings. 7. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.