JUDGMENT Sultan Singh, J.
(1) This revision under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (.hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judg- ment and order dated August 25, 1980 of the Additional Controller dismissing the petitioners' application under section 14(l)(e) for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the eviction petition was filed by attorney and not by the landlords. The Additional Controller was of the view that the eviction application ought to have been filed by the landlords.
(2) The three petitioners namely, Yogesh Singh Sahota, Sant Avtar Singh Sahotaand'Amarjit Kaur Sahota have been residing in U.K They jointly and severally appointed Shri Hardev Singh Virdi, son of Shri Ajit Singh Virdi, 148/D Wazir Nagar, Delhi, as their lawful attorney to act on their behalf in their name. The petitioners are alleged to be the owners of property No. F 14/30 Model Town, Delhi occupied by the tenants. With a view to take eviction proceedings against the tenants occupying the said property the petitioners executed a general power of attorney on January 5, 1980. It is duly authenticated by a notary public. The said attorney Shri Hardev Singh Virdi in the name of the three petitioners filed the eviction petition on February 5, 1980 before the Rent Controller, Delhi. The attorney signed and verified the eviction application. The petition was to be tried under section 25B of the Act. The respondent filed an application for leave to defend. Besides other objections the respondent submitted that the person filing the petition was not validly appointed as attorney and that the power of attorney in his favor was also improper, illegal, bad in law and therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed. The abjection found favor with the Additional Controller and as already stated he dismissed the eviction petition. The petitioners have filed this revision under section 25B(8) of the Act.
(3) The general power of attorney dated January 5, 1980 executed by the three petitioners in favor of Shri Hardev Singh Virdi, their attorney is duly executed by the petitioners and authenticated by a notary public. Section 85 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under :
"SECTION 85 : The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Counsel or Vice Counsel, or representative of the (Central Government), was so executed and authenticated."
(4) A photostat copy of the power of attorney dated January 5, 1980 is on the record.; Under section 85 of the Evidence Act the court is bound to presume that the ower of attorney executed and authenticated before a notary public was duly executed and authenticated. In other words there is a presumption of valid execution and authentication of the power of attorney. The person objecting to the power of attorney is therefore required to allege and prove that the power of attorney was not duly executed or authenticated. In the present case there is nothing on the record to show that the power of attorney produced by the petitioners was not duly executed or authenticated by the notary public. I, therefore, hold that the general power of attorney dated January 5, 1980 is duly executed and authenticated by notary public within the meaning of Section 85 of the Evidence Act.
(5) The next question is whether the attorney is entitled to institute, sign and verify the eviction petition. Under the said power of attorney the attorney has been authorised to institute, sign and verify and petition for eviction against the tenants occupying the property of the petitioners. Order 3 Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are as under :
"RULE1: Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader (appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be), on his behalf. Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person. Rule 2 : The recognized agents, of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are : (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications, and acts on behalf of such parties; (b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorised to make and do such appearances, applications and acts."
(6) Under Rule I of Order 3 of the Code any application to be made to the Court either be filed by the party in person or by his recognised agent or by a pleader on his behalf. Thus, besides the party doing an act himself, he can get the act done by his recognised agenfa The next question is: who are recognised agents ? Rule 2 of Order 3 of the Code mentions the recognised agents. They include persons holding powers-of-attorney. It is, therefore, clear that if a party does not actpersonally he may act through his recognised agent and a person holding a power of attorney on behalf of a party is his recognised agent within the meaning of Rule 2 of Order 3 of the Code. Shri Hardev Singh Virdi is holding a power of attorney from the petitioners. He is, therefore, a recognised agent of the petitioners under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code. He being a recognised agent is entitled to act and appear in any court on behalf of the petitioner under Order 3 Rule I of the Code. Thus, I am of the view that the said attorney is empowered to institute and file the eviction application on behalf of the petitioners against the respondent.
(7) Under Section 2 of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 a donee of a power of attorney is entitled to act and sign on behalf of the donor and such act is as effectual as if it had been done by the donor of the power himself. Section 2 of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 reads as under :
"S.2 ; Execution under power-of-attorney : The donee of a power-of-attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any assurance, instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every assurance, instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof."
(8) Under this provision it is, therefore, clear that an attorney is entitled to act on behalf of the donor of power, that he is the recognised agent of the party under the Code. I am, therefore, of the view that the eviction petition was properly signed, verified and instituted by a recognised agent of the petitioners as the attorney is duly appointed under the general power of attorney dated January 5, 1980. No provision of law has been brought to my notice that an eviction application can only be signed and verified by the landlord alone and not by his attorney, 'lam, therefore, of the view that order of the Additional Controller is contrary to law. The impugned order dated August 25, 1980 is therefore set aside. The eviction petition is restored to its original number and the same is remanded to the Additional Controller for disposal in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Controller on May 18, 1981. No order as to costs.