JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: (Oral) - CM No.21819-20-CII of 2011 Civil Misc.applications are allowed subject to just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5383 of 2011 1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 11.08.2011. 2. Briefly stated the respondent-landlord filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No.2 and 3 from the demised premises under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as extended to Chandigarh. 3. Petitioner was served on 18.01.2011. A joint application was filed for grant of leave to defend by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 and 3 on 29.01.2010. This application on behalf of petitioner was filed by respondent No.3 on the basis of special power of attorney dated 07.03.2009 allegedly executed by petitioner in his favour. However, the respondent-landlord filed an application seeking to strike off the defence of the petitioner as the power of attorney executed on her behalf in favour of Amar Manchanda, respondent No.3 was not legally valid. 4. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is not residing in India. The power of attorney dated 07.03.2009, executed by her in favour of respondent No.3, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-16 reads thus: Know all men by these presents that I, Arunima Manchanda @ Arunima Dhingra wife of Sh.Dev Paul Singh Dhingra, House No. 1189, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh, do hereby appoint, nominate and constitute Sh.Amar Manchanda s/o Late Sh.Puran Chand Manchanda r/o SCF No.7, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh, as may special power of attorney to do the following acts, deeds and things in respect of Court case titled as Abhey Man Singh versus Arunima Manchanda, pending in the court of Sh.Manisha Jain, Rent Controller, Chandigarh (hereinafter called ‘property’) as follows: 1. To appear and act before any office/officer, Court whether civil, criminal or revenue or misc.to give/make all such applications, forms, statement bonds, affidavits, indemnity bonds, etc.to submit them in the office accordingly, to compromise and to withdraw all such cases, to refer to Arbitration to confess judgement, to engage any Advocate/Pleader for the proper conduct of such cases, to sign and verify all such plaints/suits/petition, to file appeals, revisions with petitions against any order or decree up to the highest court of law in India, to apply for obtaining the copies of judicial stamps/records, to apply for and to receive refunds of any amount lying deposited in the court, court fee and non-judicial stamps under his own name and signatures. I, hereby ratify and agree to ratify all acts, deeds and things done by my said Attorney, Sub-Attorney, agent, as if the same were done by me in person. In witness whereof, I have set my hands on this deed at Chandigarh, on this 07th day of March 2009, in the presence of the witnesses. 5. Thus, the above attorney was executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.3 for a specific purpose i.e.to act as her attorney in the case pending in the Court of Ms.Manisha Jain, Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The above said power of attorney do not show that Amar Manchanda was duly authorised attorney of the petitioner for the instant ejectment application filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as admittedly, the instant rent application was never entrusted to the Court of Ms.Manisha Jain, Rent Controller, Chandigarh, neither the Rent Controller, in the present case, is the successor court of Ms.Manisha Jain, Rent Controller, Chandigarh. 6. It is also useful to refer to the operative part of the impugned order which reads as follows: I have perused the material on record and I have also perused the special power of attorney of Arunima Manchanda in favour of Amar Manchanda. In the said special power of attorney, Arunima Manchanda has authorized Amar Manchanda as her special power of attorney to do some acts and deeds in respect of a case titled “Abey Man Singh Vs. Arunima Manchanda” pending in the Court of Ms. Manisha Jain, the then learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh before whom another rent petition was pending. In the said special power of attorney, Arunima Manchanda has authorized Amar Manchanda as her special power of attorney to do some acts and deeds in respect of a case titled “Abey Man Singh Vs. Arunima Manchanda” pending in the Court of Ms. Manisha Jain, the then learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh before whom another rent petition was pending. Thus, the said special power attorney does not pertain to the present case or any other case other than the case pending in the Court of Ms. Manisha Jain, the then R.C., Chandigarh and as such Amar Manchanda has no authority to file application for leave to defend on behalf of Arunima Manchanda. Accordingly, the application for leave to defend on behalf of respondent Arunima Manchanda is not validand legal document and same cannot be accepted. As respondent No.1 Arunima Manchanda has failed to file application for leave to defend within the prescribed period, so , her defence is ordered to be struck off. But the application for leave to defence is to be considered on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 also. Now to come for consideration on application for leave to defend of respondents No. 2 and 3 but that shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/- to be deposited by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in free legal aid. The application stands disposed off accordingly. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the special power of attorney as reproduced above authorised Amar Manchanda to defend the case/litigation on behalf of the petitioner-tenant only, pending in the Court of Ms.Manisha Jain, Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Thus, it cannot be disputed on the basis of the aforesaid special power of attorney allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Amar Manchanda, no pleadings could have been filed in the instant ejectment application before the Rent Controller on her behalf. Therefore, the Rent Controller was right in law while passing the impugned order striking off the defence of the petitioner alone. The judgement cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Uday Shankar Triyar versus Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & anr., 2006 AIR(SC) 269 is of no help to him. Therefore, the Rent Controller was right in law while passing the impugned order striking off the defence of the petitioner alone. The judgement cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Uday Shankar Triyar versus Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & anr., 2006 AIR(SC) 269 is of no help to him. It may be seen that in the present case, the law prescribes only 15 days’ time for filing an application for grant of leave to defend under the provisions of the Sub-Section 2 of Section 18-A ,read with Schedule II of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In case, a ratification is allowed in favour of respondent-Amar Manchanda, to ratify the aforesaid fact in filing the pleadings, it will amount to stretching the limitation period as prescribed by law, which, in my view is not permissible. Dismissed. --------------