ORDER
S. Ashok Kumar, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is aggrieved over the admission of the RCOP. No. 1015 of 2005 made by the learned Rent Controller by accepting the power of attorney document signed by the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The respondents have filed RCOP. No. 1015 of 2005 along with a batch of RCOP.Nos:1014, 1013, 1016,1017,1018,1019 and 1020 of 2005 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai through their power of attorney Mrs. Munaga Sukumari against the petitioner herein. The respondents have also filed M.P. Nos. 592,593, 594,595,596,597,598,599 of 2005 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act to pay the arrears of rent. The said petitions were dismissed.
3. Aggrieved over the said orders, the respondents have preferred appeals in R.C.A. Nos. 173,172,174,175,176,177,178,179 of 2006 respectively. They have also filed petitions in M.P.Nos. 52,51,58,55,56,57,53,54 of 2006 to permit the 10th respondent herein viz., Mrs.Munaga Sukumari to file and prosecute the appeals as Power of Attorney of the respondents 1 to 9. Now the revision petitioners want to challenge the power of attorney executed by the respondents 1 to 9 in favour of Mrs. Munaga Sukumari.
4. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the very admission of the RCOP by the learned Rent Controller is without jurisdiction and in correct as the two powers of attorneys filed by the power agent for filing the said RCOP is not in accordance with law as the Foreign Power of Attorney dated 7.5.2005 filed along with the RCOP has not been adjudicated as required under law which has to be stamped within three months after it has been received in India, and in the absence of the same, it inadmissible in evidence as per Section 18 of the Stamp Act, 1899, and the said letter of Foreign Power does not specify the petition property also and the affidavit filed by the power agent does not disclose that the party resides in abroad and the affidavit does not state that the power is still in force as required under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Rules and Practice. Secondly, the General Power of Attorney dated 9.5.2005 filed along with the said RCOP filed by the 10th respondent does not contain any witnesses which are unsustainable in law and inadmissible and therefore the RCOP ought not to have been numbered and should be rejected in limini. It is also stated that the Power Agent is not an executor of the alleged Will and hence the RCOP itself is not maintainable in law.
5. The further contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the power of attorney has not been executed properly and therefore the said R.C.O.Ps filed before the learned Rent Rent Controller by the power of attorney, are not maintainable. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that the 5th respondent Mrs.Lakshmi Raju is residing at Thandepalli Goodam at Andrapredesh, the 6th respondent Mrs.Hemalatha is residing at Bangalore, 7th respondent, Mrs.Nirmala is residing at Secunderabad and the 8th respondent, Mr.A.V.R.K.Kumar is residing at Vishakapattinam and therefore they could not have signed on the same day along with other respondents.
6. Learned Counsel also contended that the impugned power of attorney did not state that it was executed before the Notary Public, nor did it bear any authentication by Notary Public regarding the manner of execution or the person executint he power of attorney, presumption of execution could nto be raised in faovur of the power of attorney as has been held in AIR 1984 Delhi 365.
7. It is also contended that as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, if the power of attorney is to be treated as crating an equitable assignment of rents, it will require registration and if not registered it will be void and unenforceable. In the power of attorney dated 7.5.2005 it was mentioned that “to collect rents” and therefore it needs registration compulsorily. Therefore, both the power of attorneys filed by the power agent is not valid in the eye of law and inadmissible in evidence.
8. Though the Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners have mentioned that the respondents are residing in the said addresses at various places, it appears that they have signed together, which has been attested by a Notary Public at Madras. It is categorically mentioned in page 6 of the power of attorney that all of them have signed on 7.5.2005 and executed the power of attorney on the same day. Therefore the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the power of attorney could not have been executed on the same day may not be sustained.
9. In this respect it is useful to refer to Section 85 of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows:
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) Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the (Central Government, was so executed and authenticated.
10. Therefore, as per Section 85 of the Evidence Act, which is very clear in its language that the court shall presume that the power of attorney attested by the Notary Public was so executed and authenticated before him. In other words, there is a presumption of valid execution and authentication of the power of attorney. Persons contesting it has to prove otherwise. Therefore I do not find any error in admitting the document of power of attorney to file the RCOP. Therefore it is always open to the contesting party, namely the revision petitioner who challenges the due execution and authentication of the two power of attorneys before the concerned Notary Publics to prove the otherwise by letting in oral and documentary proof as the burden is always lies on the party who disputes the document to prove the same. Since the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which requires adjudication by letting in oral and documentary evidence, such questions could be gone into only by the trial court by framing necessary issues in that regard. Therefore giving such liberty, this CRP is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is also dismissed. No costs.