JUDGMENT 1. - A reply to original application preferred by a landlord before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, pleading default in payment of rent and personal necessity was filed by the power of attorney of tenant. The contents of the reply, except in the verification clause nowhere mention about execution of power of attorney by the tenant in favour of the person who has signed the reply. In rejoinder, the original applicant termed the reply invalid being not supported by any deed executing power of attorney by the tenant. An application then moved by the tenant to bring power of attorney on record came to be rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 3.9.2009 and this order acquired finality on dismissal of the petition for writ, special appeal and special leave petition calling in question its correctness. 2. The Rent Tribunal by its order dated 5.3.2011 accepted the original application and granted a certificate for eviction of the tenant from the rented premises. To assail correctness of the order and certificate given, an appeal was preferred by the tenant before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur. The tenant again made an effort to bring power of attorney on record by submitting an application as per provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, but that too came to be rejected. The Rent Appellate Tribunal, however, by its judgment dated 24.10.2011 set aside the order and certificate dated 5.3.2011 and remanded the original application for its disposal afresh by examining a question as follows - "Whether the actions taken by Shri Srigopal by depicting himself as power of attorney of non-applicant appellant, pertaining to which no objection was taken either by Rent Tribunal or by the applicant and was permitted by Rent Tribunal to cross examine the applicant's witnesses and permitted Shri Srigopal to adduce evidence on basis of his own knowledge and also being power of attorney and he was also cross examined by counsel for the applicant, can be treated as actions taken by or on behalf of the appellant non-applicant?" 3. In pursuant to the direction above the Rent Tribunal considered the question aforesaid and arrived at a conclusion that no instrument executing power of attorney in favour of Shri Srigopal was placed on record, hence no inference can be drawn that the advocate for tenant was appointed by the tenant herself. In pursuant to the direction above the Rent Tribunal considered the question aforesaid and arrived at a conclusion that no instrument executing power of attorney in favour of Shri Srigopal was placed on record, hence no inference can be drawn that the advocate for tenant was appointed by the tenant herself. The Tribunal observed that the evidence can always be adduced in support of pleadings and there being no authority to Shri Srigopal to sign the pleadings on behalf of the tenant, hence, the evidence adduced by him is not admissible. 4. The Rent Tribunal though answered the question settled by the Rent Appellate Tribunal but did not give any judgment and also did not issue any certification of eviction. It appears that the Rent Tribunal treated the judgment dated 24.10.2011 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal as a partial remand only to the extent of adjudicating an issue, though the Rent Appellate Tribunal under its judgment aforesaid set aside the judgment and certificate dated 5.3.2011. 5. The tenant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 22.9.2012 preferred a petition for writ before this Court with assertion that the conclusion arrived is wrong as the Rent Tribunal failed to appreciate that the original applicant landlord did not raise any objection during the course of adjudication of the original application and accepted locus of the power of attorney holder. It was also emphasised that the Rent Appellate Tribunal after examining entire factual matrix arrived at a conclusion that the Rent Tribunal is required to examine the issue concerned afresh by taking into consideration certain relevant facts, but those have been ignored. 6. Learned Single Bench by judgment impugned accepted the writ petition with following consideration, observation and directions:- "8. Having heard the learned counsels at some length and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 22/9/2012, this Court is at loss to understand the attitude of learned Rent Tribunal in this regard in the face of the fact that the original power of attorney has already been filed previously in injunction suit by the defendant Sushila Devi, which matter reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the power of attorney being in the court record though in different case, the same naturally could not be produced before the Rent Tribunal. The said fact coupled with the fact that very initiation of defence in the present case right from filing of 'Vakalatnama' by said power of attorney holder, Shrigopal on behalf of defendant-tenant-Sushila Devi, his mother, and before the Rent Tribunal, the defence was led by Shrigopal only, the power of attorney holder of Smt. Sushila Devi, the learned Rent Tribunal despite detailed remand order by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, in rather stubborn manner, has chosen to pass the impugned order, setting aside the defence of tenant again. The Presiding Officer of the Rent Tribunal appears to have cared a little about the facts on record and the detailed judgment by the superior Court and that is why in a totally reckless manner, she has reiterated the same stand as taken in the earlier order dated 5/3/2011. The purpose of power of attorney was only to justify the locus of Shrigopal, which otherwise stood all through the trial as valid & the court had already verified the same upon its production. This clearly shows that the said Rent Tribunal is even now bent upon to pass the ex-parte eviction decree against the defendant-tenant, ignoring the defence led by the son of defendant tenant-Sushila Devi as her power of attorney holder. Such reticent attitude of the lower court or Tribunal in the face of the orders of superior Court cannot be appreciated. Mere writing of long orders do not make them justified orders necessarily. 9. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not normally interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the lower courts or Tribunals, unless a serious miscarriage of justice or illegality is seen in the order passed by the lower court or Tribunal. The present case presents a glaring example of such a bad exercise of judicial discretion vested in the Rent Tribunal below. 10. Consequently, this writ petition of tenant is allowed. The impugned order dated 22/9/2012 is set aside and the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan is requested to transfer the proceedings of the said case no. 208/2007 (Devilal v. Sushila Devi ) to other competent court of similar jurisdiction to decide the said eviction petition afresh to allay the apprehension of defendant-tenant. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to both the Tribunals below." 7. 208/2007 (Devilal v. Sushila Devi ) to other competent court of similar jurisdiction to decide the said eviction petition afresh to allay the apprehension of defendant-tenant. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to both the Tribunals below." 7. Being aggrieved by judgment of writ court this special appeal is preferred with submission that the Rent Tribunal after remand afforded complete opportunity of hearing to both the parties and passed the order dated 22.9.2012. Learned Single Judge without examining the reasons given by Rent Tribunal, specially the facts that an objection was raised by the original applicant in rejoinder to the reply and the tenant despite efforts at every legal forum failed to bring the power of attorney on record, set aside the order and also made unwarranted observations against the Presiding Officers of the Tribunal. No material is available on record to assume that Shri Srigopal was power of attorney of the tenant. It is asserted that due to non-availability of power of attorney there were no pleadings on behalf of the tenant, therefore, no evidence adduced by so called power of attorney holder could have been accepted. 8. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the request made to District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan to transfer the proceedings to some other Rent Tribunal is not only unwarranted but is without jurisdiction also as the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan is having no supervisory or administrative control over the Rent Tribunal and in Jodhpur city there is only one Rent Tribunal to adjudicate the original applications and other applications as per provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001'). 9. On the other hand, the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent tenant is that the order passed by learned Single Bench is just and proper in view of the fact that the power of attorney holder Shri Srigopal stood all through the trial as a valid representative of the tenant and he also verified contents of the written statement by designating himself as power of attorney of tenant. As per learned counsel the power of attorney holder is son of non-applicant tenant Smt. Sushila Devi and, therefore, he was aware with all necessary facts referred in the written statement. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. As per learned counsel the power of attorney holder is son of non-applicant tenant Smt. Sushila Devi and, therefore, he was aware with all necessary facts referred in the written statement. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. As already stated, the Rent Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 24.10.2011 set aside the order and certificate dated 5.3.2011 and remanded the original application for its disposal afresh specially with regard to the question framed. The Rent Tribunal, however, answered the question without deciding the original application itself. The resultant is that there is no decision with regard to the relief claimed by the landlord in the application concerned. True it is, the Rent Tribunal by its judgment dated 5.3.2011 accepted the original application but that was set aside by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, hence it was necessary for the Rent Tribunal to give a verdict afresh. The order passed by the Tribunal as such is apparently laconic. 12. So far as the order dated 22.9.2012 is concerned, we are of considered opinion that merely on the count that power of attorney was not available on record, it cannot be assumed ipse-dixit that no power of attorney was executed by the landlord in favour of the person who singed the pleadings, specially when he termed himself as a power of attorney of the landlord while verifying contents of the reply. This question should have been decided by raising appropriate objection and by disposing of the same with the aid of material available on record. Suffice to mention that the Act of 2001 give ample power to Rent Tribunal as well as the Rent Appellate Tribunal to regulate their own procedure while discharging their functions. The prime consideration while accepting a procedure to regulate authority under the Act of 2001 is adherence of the principles of natural justice. The Rent Tribunal as such could have ascertained the fact as to whether the person who signed the pleadings on behalf of the tenant was having necessary power of attorney or not. The Rent Tribunal could have asked for additional evidence too in this regard but obviously that could have not been done in the instant matter in view of the fact that the Rent Appellate Tribunal imposed a restriction in this regard. The Rent Tribunal could have asked for additional evidence too in this regard but obviously that could have not been done in the instant matter in view of the fact that the Rent Appellate Tribunal imposed a restriction in this regard. We are of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice and also to maintain all fairness in the proceedings it would have been appropriate to keep it open for fair adjudication of the question referred. 13. At the same time it shall also be appropriate to mention that no intention as gathered by learned Single Judge could have been gathered about having power of attorney in favour of the person who signed the pleadings on behalf of the tenant just for the reason that it was said to be on record being filed in some other case. As a matter of fact the person who claimed himself as power of attorney of the landlord was supposed to establish that he had valid authority to appoint a lawyer on behalf of the tenant and further to sign pleadings on her behalf. We are also of the view that no occasion was there for learned Single Bench to make adverse observations about the Presiding Officer of the Rent Tribunal and further to request the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan to transfer proceedings of Original Application No.208/2007 to other competent court of similar jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in saying that as a matter of fact District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan is not having any administrative and supervisory control over the Rent Tribunal created under the Act of 2001. Beside that, in entire Jodhpur District there is only one Rent Tribunal and as such the original application concerned is required to be adjudicated by that court only. If for any reason it is to be transferred to some other Rent Tribunal, then i.e. to be transferred to the Rent Tribunal in some other District then Jodhpur and such order of transfer can be passed only by the High Court and not by the District Judge. 14. For the reasons given above, we are of considered opinion that the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 22.9.2012 as well as the order passed by learned Single Bench dated 22.1.2013 are not sustainable. The appeal, thus, is allowed. 14. For the reasons given above, we are of considered opinion that the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 22.9.2012 as well as the order passed by learned Single Bench dated 22.1.2013 are not sustainable. The appeal, thus, is allowed. The order dated 22.9.2012 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur as well as the order passed by learned Single Bench dated 22.1.2013 are set aside. The Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur is directed to consider and decide the original application afresh in terms of the directions given by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur vide its order dated 24.10.2011. The Rent Tribunal, however, shall be at liberty to exercise whatever power available to it as per Section 21 of the Act of 2001 to adjudicate the question referred by the Rent Appellate Tribunal and to decide the original application. Expeditious disposal of the original application as far as possible on or before 15.3.2015 is desirable.No order as to costs.Special appeal allowed. *******