1989 PLP 1438 (MLD)

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller settled the following issues:‑ (i) Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of rent? (ii) Whether applicant required the premises in question for her personal bona fide use? (iii) What should the order be? The parties then led evidence in support of their contentions and issues settled by the Court. The Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the tenant in fact committed default in payment of rent as alleged and land owner needed the premises for her bona fide use. The Rent Controller ultimately by her order dated 27‑9‑86 passed in rent case No.978/85 allowed the application and directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlady within 30 days from the date of that order. The order referred to in the preceding paragraph has been impugned in this appeal. The only point urged by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant is that the application as filed was not maintainable in law as the applicant herself had not signed and verified it and according to him the power of attorney dated 2‑4‑1969 executed in favour of her husband had signed and verified the application was not valid and is insufficiently stamped. Such a contention was in fact raised through the stand taken in para. 13 of the written statement filed by the appellant. Para. 13 of the written statement is reproduced below:‑ "That the application is not maintainable in law as it was not signed by the applicant herself. The power of attorney dated 2‑4‑1969 is not valid and proper power of attorney. The said power of attorney was insufficiently stamped. The said power of attorney does not empower and/or file the eviction application against the exponent. The said power of attorney was not validly attested as Mr. Shah Raziuddin Ahmed the Oath Commissioner of Karachi had no power and authority to make attestation of the said power of attorney and that the said power of attorney could have been attested by a Notary Public arid not by the Oath Commissioner. The said power of attorney did not bear the signature of the appellant." On examination of the record it appears that the rent application was signet: and verified by Noorul Haq who is the husband of the, applicant landlady. Alongwith the rent application a special power of attorney on Rs. 4 stamp paper dated 2nd April, 1969 was filed. This power of attorney has been executed by applicant Mst. Shamsunnisa in favour of her husband Noorul Haq: in respect of premises in question. The rent application was filed on 22nd August, 1985 while written statement was filed on 1‑12‑1985. Mst. Shamsunnisa executed another general power of attorney in favour of her husband Noorul Haq on 5‑12‑1985 whereby the attorney was authorised to file such application and pursue such cases on her behalf in Courts of taw. No exception has been taken to this power of attorney. In these circumstances if there was any defect in the previous power of attorney the same defect stood corrected. The learned Advocate for the appellant has also not been able to show any law whereby the pleadings at this stage could be rejected on that objection. The only point that has been urged in this appeal before me is to highlight the defect in the first power of attorney. The second power of attorney was duly executed in favour of her husband who had initially filed the rent application. This power removed all the defects, if any. In view of above I found no merit in the appeal and by a short order passed on 27‑11‑1988 had dismissed it with no order as to the costs. Above are reasons for that order. The learned advocate for the appellant had requested for grant of time to vacate the premises in question. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent stated no objection if time of 4 months is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises. In view of the above the appellant is granted 4 months time from 27‑11‑1988 to vacate the premises in question and put the respondent in b possession thereof. In the meanwhile he will continue to deposit the rent. M.Y.H./H‑134/K Appeal dismissed.