HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.225 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the lessee in respect of premises owned by the respondent. The latter filed O.S.No.937 of 2003 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, for eviction. Several grounds, including the one of default in payment of rents were pleaded. The appellant opposed the suit by fling written statement. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 10-12-2008. The appellant filed A.S. No.73 of 2008 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed on 27-01-2010. Hence, this Second Appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration, viz., whether the respondent is entitled for the relief of eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule property? 4. On behalf of the respondent, her husband deposed as PW-1 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the appellant, DWs-1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was filed. 5. The principal contention advanced by the appellant was that PW-1 did not file any registered General Power of Attorney (GPA). The trial Court took note of the fact that an unregistered GPA was filed and that he represented his wife in the suit. The suit was, ultimately, decreed. A.S. No.73 of 2009 filed by the appellant was dismissed. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: “1) Whether Nalluri Sambasiva Rao being the husband of the plaintiff is authorized to file the suit under proper authorization, if so, is he competent to file the suit and, institution of the suit by the plaintiff represented by her GPA Holder is proper? 2) Whether P.W.1 Nalluri Sambasiva Rao is competent to depose on behalf of his wife Nalluri Anuradha before the court in this suit. If not, can be the suit be dismissed on this ground? 3) Whether oral agreement to enhance rent from Rs.4,600-00 to Rs.5,000-00 to continue the defendant in possession of property as tenant till October, 2008 is true? 4) Whether the defendant/appellant committed default in payment of rent for the period from November, 2002 till April, 2003. If so, is the defendant/appellant liable to be evicted from the schedule premises? 6. The appeal was, ultimately, dismissed. 7. Hardy any question of law, much less a substantial one arises for consideration. The appellant does not dispute the ownership of the respondent over the property. Certain controversy persisted as to whether the appellant committed default in payment of rents. Assuming that there was no default on the part of the appellant, that hardly constitutes any ground to resist the suit for eviction on the basis of a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act’). 8. Another objection raised by the appellant was that PW-1 did not file a registered General Power of Attorney. It is not as if any third party was permitted to represent the plaintiff. PW-1 was none other than the husband of the respondent herein. She executed a Power of Attorney authorizing him to represent her in the suit. Law does not require that the documents of that nature must be registered. The effort of the Courts as well as the Parliament to ensure that the proceedings of this nature are relieved from hyper technicalities. Amendment caused to Section 106 of the Act is a step in that direction. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to seek alternative accommodation to establish the business. This request was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Second Appeal is dismissed granting time to the appellant till 31-03-2012 subject to payment of rents regularly on or before 5th of every month. Arrears, if any, shall be cleared within a period of four (4) months. In case, the appellant commits default in payment of rents, it shall be open to the respondent to seek execution of the decree. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 03, 2011. KTL