AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This revision petition by the tenant u/s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is directed against a decision of the Rent Controller, Simla over-ruling her objection that the petition u/s 13 of the Act for her ejectment was not properly filed.
A petition was filed by the landlady against the tenant seeking her ejectment. In the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, it was pointed out that the petition was signed by Shri Balbir Singh as the landlady''s attorney, and it was urged that the power of attorney was defective inasmuch as it was not registered and that it was a compulsorily registrable document by virtue of Section 17(1)(b) of the India Registration Act. The objection was over-ruled by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no assignment of any interest in any immovable property by the executant in favour of the attorney and therefore registration was not called for.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the document did call for registration and the Rent Controller erred in the view which he took. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties it seems to me that having regard to the terms of the document the Rent Controller is right. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act requires a compulsory registration of "non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property". The power of attorney in question merely authorises the attorney to look after the properties belonging to the executant at Simla, to take legal action against tenants for realisation of rents, for filing any ejectment application or a suit for possession or other legal proceedings necessary for realisation of rent and ejectment of the tenants. The executant has specifically stated in the document that the attorney ''is to act on my behalf and in my name''. It is clear that no interest has been transferred by the executant in favour of the attorney in the immovable properties, and consequently the document does not fall within the scope of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act.
My attention has been drawn to Ganpat Pandurang v. Adarji Dadabhai ILR 3 Bom. 3121. In that case, however, the power of attorney specifically contained an assignment of interest from the 1. ILR 3 Bom. 312.
executant to the attorney. The attorney was entitled under the document to recover moneys on his own account and not on behalf of the executant. Reference has also been made to Indra Bibi v. Jain Sirdar Ahiri ILR 35 Cal. 8452. There, the power of attorney operated to create a charge on immovable property and it was held that the document should have been registered. The third case cited before me, Ma Mo v. Mahomed Backer Hamadanee AIR 1918 LB 63, does not help the Petitioner. What it lays down is that the Registration Act does not require that the power conferred on an agent to transfer an interest in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 must be in the form of a registered document. None of these cases support the contention raised by the Petitioner when regard is had to the contents of the document under consideration.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also urges that the power of attorney could not have been considered in evidence by the Rent Controller because it did not bear the stamp duty necessary for notarial attestation. That was not a point which was raised before the Rent Controller and in the present proceedings, which invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, it is not right that it should be allowed to be raised for the first time. It may be still open to the Petitioner to raise it before the Rent Controller if the law permits it.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that the petition filed by the landlady has been pending for a fairly long time before the Rent Controller, and it is desirable that it should be disposed of expeditiously. There is no reason to doubt that as far as possible the Rent Controller will do so. The parties will appear before the Rent Controller on November 14, 1972.
The revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.