1988 (10) TMI 277 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds eviction orders for non-compliance with rent deposit and power of attorney validation.

The court dismissed both appeals, affirming the eviction orders due to the appellant's non-compliance with rent deposit orders and the validation of ... Admissibility of unregistered lease deed for collateral purpose - Recognition of foreign notarial acts and applicability of presumptions under the Evidence Act - Validation and ratification of agent's acts by subsequent power of attorney - Exercise of discretion under Section 15(7) Delhi Rent Control Act for striking out defence - Interim deposit order under Section 15(1) Delhi Rent Control ActAdmissibility of unregistered lease deed for collateral purpose - Interim deposit order under Section 15(1) Delhi Rent Control Act - Whether an unregistered lease-deed could be looked into to determine the nature and character of possession and whether the Rent Controller was justified in making an interim order under Section 15(1). - HELD THAT: - The Court held that where a lease-deed, though not registered, is required to be registered compulsorily, it may nevertheless be examined for collateral purposes to ascertain the nature and character of possession. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court authority that proof of the nature or character of possession is collateral and an unregistered document is admissible for that limited purpose. Applying this principle to the facts, the lease-deed signed by the appellant and by the respondent's father could be examined to show that the appellant was in possession as tenant. In consequence, the Rent Controller was legally entitled to pass an interim order under Section 15(1) on the prima facie view of disputed facts and evidence placed before him. [Paras 3, 4]An unregistered lease-deed may be looked into for collateral purposes to determine character of possession; the interim order under Section 15(1) was validly made.Recognition of foreign notarial acts and applicability of presumptions under the Evidence Act - Whether powers of attorney attested/authenticated by a Notary Public of the U.S.A. are admissible in Indian courts and whether presumptions under Sections 57 and 85 of the Evidence Act apply in absence of a Central Government notification under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the effect of the Notaries Act and Section 14 and rejected the contention that absence of a notification under Section 14 operates as an absolute bar to recognising notarial acts of foreign notaries where there is reciprocity of recognition in practice. The Court noted historical practice and authorities holding that documents authenticated by foreign notaries may be admissible and that Section 14 does not oust prior practice where notarial acts of India are recognised in the foreign country. Further, where a document bears the seal of a notary of a foreign country, Section 57 permits a presumption as to genuineness of the seal and Section 85 permits relevant presumptions; it would defeat those presumptions to require independent proof from the foreign country that the attesting official was a duly appointed notary. Applying these principles, the Court held that notarial acts of the U.S.A. Notary Publics were recognisable and the presumptions under Sections 57 and 85 could be drawn in respect of properly authenticated documents. [Paras 6, 7, 11, 12, 13]Powers of attorney attested/authenticated by a U.S.A. Notary Public are admissible where notarial acts are recognisable; presumptions under Sections 57 and 85 of the Evidence Act apply to such authenticated documents.Validation and ratification of agent's acts by subsequent power of attorney - Whether a subsequent valid power of attorney, produced on appeal, validating earlier acts of the respondent's father cures any initial defect in institution of the eviction petitions. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied established principles of agency and ratification: a principal may subsequently ratify acts of an agent executed without authority, thereby curing the original defect. The first power of attorney was held not duly authenticated and therefore ineffective to confer authority at the time of institution; however, a later power of attorney produced in appeal was properly authenticated and expressly ratified the acts of the respondent's father in instituting the eviction proceedings. Authorities were cited to show that subsequent ratification or adoption of proceedings cures defects in initial institution. [Paras 5, 9, 14, 16]The subsequent valid power of attorney ratified the acts of the respondent's father and cured any initial defect; the eviction petitions were thus instituted by a duly authorised person.Exercise of discretion under Section 15(7) Delhi Rent Control Act for striking out defence - Interim deposit order under Section 15(1) Delhi Rent Control Act - Whether the Rent Controller/Tribunal erred in striking out the appellant's defence under Section 15(7) given later deposit of arrears and month-to-month rent during pendency of appeals. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that while striking out under Section 15(7) involves judicial discretion, such discretion must be exercised on the facts. The appellant had repeatedly failed and neglected to comply with interlocutory orders under Section 15(1) despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, failed to deposit the rent or file replies to applications seeking strike-out, and thus engaged in contumacious conduct. The fact that deposits were later made conditionally to obtain stay did not absolve the earlier wilful non-compliance. In these circumstances the Tribunal did not err in refusing to set aside the order striking out defence. [Paras 17, 18]Strike-out of the appellant's defence under Section 15(7) was justified by wilful non-compliance and contumacious conduct; the Tribunal rightly refused to interfere.Final Conclusion: Both appeals are dismissed. The High Court upheld the interim orders under Section 15(1), held that an unregistered lease-deed may be examined for collateral purposes to determine tenancy, recognised admissibility and presumptions attaching to properly authenticated powers of attorney attested by a U.S.A. notary, found the subsequently produced power of attorney validated earlier acts of the respondent's father, and affirmed the strike-out of the appellant's defence under Section 15(7) on the facts; appeals dismissed with costs. Issues Involved:1. Non-payment of rent.2. Dispute over the existence of landlord-tenant relationship.3. Admissibility of unregistered lease deeds.4. Validity of eviction petitions filed by an unauthorized person.5. Striking out the defense under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Non-payment of Rent:The respondent filed two eviction petitions against the appellant for non-payment of rent. The ground floor was rented at Rs. 2400 per month, and the basement at Rs. 1000 per month, later increased to Rs. 1200. Rent arrears were due from January 1, 1984, and despite notices of demand dated March 12, 1985, the appellant did not pay.2. Dispute over the Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship:The appellant contended he was not the tenant, claiming the premises were rented to M/s. Wadbrow India (P) Ltd. and M/s. Spectra India. The respondent countered, stating the appellant was the tenant, and M/s. Spectra India was not a legal entity as it was a sole proprietorship of the appellant.3. Admissibility of Unregistered Lease Deeds:The appellant argued that the lease deeds, not executed on proper stamp paper and unregistered, could not be considered. However, the court held that under Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered lease deed could be looked into for collateral purposes, such as determining the nature of possession. Citing various precedents, it was established that the unregistered lease deeds could be used to show the appellant's possession as a tenant.4. Validity of Eviction Petitions Filed by an Unauthorized Person:The appellant argued that the eviction petitions were invalid as they were signed by the respondent's father without a valid power of attorney. The court noted that the respondent's father had acted as the attorney in letting out the premises and the appellant, having accepted the lease, could not dispute the father's authority. The court found that the power of attorney produced during the appeal, duly authenticated and ratifying the father's actions, validated the eviction petitions.5. Striking Out the Defense under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act:The appellant's defense was struck out for not depositing the rent as ordered under Section 15(1). Despite multiple opportunities and extensions, the appellant failed to comply. The court held that the appellant's contumacious conduct justified striking out the defense. The Rent Control Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals was upheld, as the appellant did not tender the arrears of rent within the stipulated time after receiving the notice of demand.Conclusion:The court dismissed both appeals, affirming the eviction orders. The appellant's failure to comply with the rent deposit orders and the validation of the eviction petitions by the authenticated power of attorney were key factors in the decision. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 500 in each appeal.