Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is a tenant of an accommodation of which the second Respondent is a landlord. The landlord applied for permission Under Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act for suing the Petitioner for ejectment. The application was contested by the Petitioner. Affidavits were filed, but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the permission on 28 -2 -1966. The Petitioner filed a revision. That has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 30 -7 -1966. The Additional Commissioner held that the revision was filed on 30 -3 -1966 by Sri S.K. Bajaj, who was a counsel in the lower court. He did not file a separate vakalatnama along with the memorandum of the revision. The revision was consequently dismissed for improper presentation. The Petitioner asserts that Sri S.K. Bajaj, his counsel, had filed his vakalatnama before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He had in the memorandum of revision stated this fact and had also stated that because of the fact, there was no need to file a fresh vakalatnama. In the present petition it has been asserted that the said vakalatnama authorised Sri Bajaj to file the revision.
(2.) THE impugned order suggests that there was a vakalatnama of Sri Bajaj in the file of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Additional Commissioner's grievance was that Sri Bajaj had not filed a separate vakalatnama. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that it is not a well founded objection. There is no provision under which a separate vakalatnama may be necessary before a revision under the Rent Control and Eviction Act can be held to be properly presented. Paragraph 185 of the Revenue Court Manual will not govern proceedings under the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act. That applies to proceedings before the Revenue Court as constituted by the U.P. Land Revenue Act. A Commissioner while deciding matters as a revenue court may be governed by the Revenue Court Manual, but while he is seized of a revision under the Rent Control Act, he is not acting as a Revenue Court. Paragraph 185 will hence not be attracted to such a revision. The vakalatnama filed by Sri Bajaj, as stated by the Petitioner, authorised him to file a revision. He, therefore, validly filed the revision and it was properly presented. For the Respondents it has been urged that Sri Bajaj did not file any vakalatnama. Reliance has been placed upon the copies of the Petitioner's application made in the office of the Commissioner and the report thereon. The application asks for verification of the following points from the file of Revision No. 99 of 1966 decided on 30 -7 -1966. The first question taken was whether the vakalatnama was filed by Sri Bajaj on the record of this case on 29 -7 -1966. The answer given was in the negative. Obviously this report means that Sri Bajaj did not file any vakalatnama in Revision No. 99 of 1966 on 29 -7 -1966 or till 21 -11 -1966 when the report was made. This report does not deal with the question whether Sri Bajaj had filed a vakalatnama before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This application and the report cannot be relied upon to negative the Petitioner's clear and categorical assertion in paragraph 6 of the petition that Sri Bajaj had filed his vakalatnama before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, specially when the counter -affidavit replies in regard to paragraph No. 6 by stating merely that it is not admitted. In my opinion, the Petitioner has established that Sri Bajaj had filed the Vakalatnama before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
(3.) IN view of the above, the Petitioner's revision was properly presented before the Additional Commissioner. It ought to have been disposed of on the merits.;