THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 4429 of 2011 Order: This CRP is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2011 passed in R.A. No. 225 of 2010 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, reversing finding of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, dated 31.05.2010, in R.C. No.118 of 2008. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlady. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience. The petitioner-landlady namely Jayasree, aged about 60 years and widow, represented by her GPA Holder Smt. Saritha, filed the petition in R.C. No. 118 of 2008, under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii), 10(C), 10(2)(iv) and 10(2)(v) of the A.P. buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition schedule premises on the grounds of change of user of the petition schedule premises, committing acts of waste, to receive immediate possession of the schedule property being a widow under Section 10(c) of the Act, securing of alternative accommodation by the tenant and creating nuisance at the spot in the petition schedule premises. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the landlady of the house bearing No.2-4-487 (Part) North and East portion, situated at Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. The respondent is the tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2750/- exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges and also property taxes. The parties executed a rental agreement on 01.02.2001 and as per the terms and conditions of the rental agreement, rent is payable month to month on or before 5th of every succeeding month as per the English calendar. Though the respondent initially obtained the petition schedule premises for residential purpose, but later on, he had converted the said premises into residential-cum-commercial one and carrying on Bhelpuri business violating the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.1158 of 2006 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking injunction, wherein he has admitted that there is change of usage of the premises. It is also alleged that the respondent had erected a new zinc sheet shed in the common passage area and converted the common open passage area into a commercial place, damaging the residential accommodation from all fronts. Thus, the additional constructions have been carried out willfully and deliberately impairing the value and utility of the petition schedule premises resulting in weakening of load bearing walls of the basic structures. The further case of the petitioner is that her husband died recently at USA and she wants to settle in India and lead left over life in a peaceful manner amongst her known persons and therefore, she wants to occupy the petition schedule premises. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent has purchased his own premises at Malkajgiri and let out the same to his tenants and getting monthly rental income of Rs.12,000/-. It is also alleged that the respondent started mini food manufacturing unit and causing nuisance while preparing food items under the name and style of Anand Caters. The respondent-tenant filed a counter admitting that he is the tenant of the petition schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2750/- . His case is that there is no specific agreement for the usage of premises. He denied that he is conducting any business in the petition schedule premises. It is also his case that as per the orders in I.A. No.1270 of 2006 in O.S. No.1158 of 2006 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, an advocate- commissioner was appointed, who inspected the petition schedule premises and filed report, which shows that the respondent has not changed any usage of the premises from residential to commercial. His main case is that alterations were made with the permission of the petitioner. The respondent’s further case is that the petitioner has demolished an old building and she is having another open place and the petitioner is trying to evict the respondent from the schedule premises with an ulterior motive to construct a huge commercial complex. With reference to the alternative accommodation, the contention of the respondent is that the property at Malkajgiri belongs to his parents. The respondent had also taken a plea that the petitioner did not file copy of GPA and that without seeking the permission of the Court the petition for eviction was filed and therefore the same is not maintainable. The learned Rent Controller framed necessary points for consideration. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent himself was examined as RW.1 and RW.2 was also examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to evict the respondent-tenant on the ground of securing alternative accommodation and to recover immediate possession of the premises as widow under Section 10 (c) (1)(a) of the Act. He further held that the petitioner, without filing copy of GPA and obtaining permission from the Rent Controller, as required under Rule 32 CRP, filed the petition and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-landlady filed an appeal in R.A. No.225 of 2010. The appellate authority, on re- appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that there is no necessity to produce the deed of GPA especially when the landlady herself entered into witness box and deposed in her favour and that by virtue of Rule 15 of the A.P. Rent Control Rules, the rent control proceedings are maintainable against the respondent. Against the same, the respondent-tenant filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority is not justified in holding that the petition filed by the landlady is maintainable even without filing copy of GPA into Court. It is argued that the findings of the appellate authority that, the tenant secured alternative accommodation, is also not correct. It is also argued that the time granted for eviction of the premises is inadequate. The only point that arises for consideration is whether filing of copy of GPA is mandatory and whether it is a curable defect? Where, in a case, a party is entitled to the relief and for substantial justice, denial of justice to such party on technical grounds appears to be not justified. In this case, of course, the landlady has filed the petition through her GPA Saritha. But, admittedly, the landlady herself entered into the witness box and she was examined as PW.1. A representation of party is necessary when a party is unable to appear in person. Normally, where in a case a party is unable to file any suit or a petition for any reasons beyond his/her control, for example when he/she is bed-ridden or in a foreign country and unable to undertake a journey, then in such circumstances in order to protect his/her interest, the party may appoint an agent and empower him/her to prosecute the litigation on his/her behalf to protect his/her interest. Of course, Rule 32 of CRP provides that when a party appears by any agent, other than an advocate, the agent shall, before making of or doing any appearance, application, or act, in or to the court, file in court the power of attorney, or written authority, thereunto authorizing him or a properly authenticated copy thereof together with an affidavit that the said authority still subsisting. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of CRP permission of the court is required. However, it appears that the said defect is curable. In Md. Munawar Hussain v. Usha Kiran Chit Funds, Sathupalli, Khammam District[1], this Court did not accept the contention that in view of the irregularity in not obtaining permission of the court, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In M. Lakshminarayana v. M. Jagannadha Reddy (died) per L.R.[2], the landlord filed petition through GPA without obtaining permission as required under Rule 32 of CRP. It was held that the defect is curable. In that case copy of GPA was filed, but in the present case, copy of GPA is not filed. However, Rule 15 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, is as follows. “Any appearance, application or act in any proceeding before the Controller or the appellate authority may be made or done by the party in person or by his recognized agent or by counsel. Provided that in any such proceeding where the Union of India or the State of Andhra Pradesh or any public servant under the Union or the State in his official capacity, are parties, no Government or other pleader appearing on their behalf shall be required to present by any document empowering him to act but such pleader shall file a memorandum of appearance signed by him and such memorandum of appearance need not be stamped.” However, there is no provision as similar to sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 CRP. Rule 7(3) is as follows. “(3) Every application shall be signed by the applicant or his counsel and be presented to the Controller by the applicant himself personally or by his recognized agent or by counsel at any time during office hours on a working day.” So, this Court in the above decision, while considering Rules 7(3) and 15 of the Rules, held that no permission of the Court is required for such presentation and that the Civil Rules of Practice cannot be invoked when the matter is covered by specific statutory provisions. Thus, it is clear that the findings of the Rent Controller are contrary to the decision of this Court in M. Lakshminarayana’s case (2 supra). Now the issue is that the copy of GPA was not filed along with the petition. Normally, when a petition has been filed, the concerned Chief Ministerial Officer should examine and put up a note for return of the suits or petitions, which are defective. The trial Courts should give reasonable time to the parties to comply with those defects. It is not clear whether any objection was taken at the initial stage to file the copy of GPA by Smt. Saritha. Had the lower Court taken objection at the initial stage, probably the situation would have been otherwise. But, for the mistake of the Court, no party should suffer. Moreover, as seen from the record, the landlady herself was examined as PW.1. When she was in the witness box, no suggestion was given to her that she did not execute GPA in favour of Saritha and the tenant did not dispute that Saritha was empowered as an agent to file the petition on behalf of the landlady. As far as securing of alternative accommodation and the entitlement of the petitioner for immediate possession under Section 10(c)(1)(a) of the Act are concerned, the findings of both the Additional Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority are concurrent, but only on the issue of not filing copy of GPA and not obtaining permission under Section 32 CRP, the findings of the Additional Rent Controller are reversed by the appellate authority. Since the findings on fact cannot be said to be perverse or not based on record, I am not inclined to interfere with those findings. As far as the finding on the issue of not obtaining permission under Rule 32 and not filing copy of GPA are concerned, the findings of the appellate authority appears to be in accordance with law, equity and justice. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the appellate authority. There are no merits in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. The tenant is granted time to vacate the petition schedule premises till 28.02.2012. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 20.12.2011 Nsr [1] 2003 (6) ALD 796 [2] 1993(3) ALT 162