Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) As far as the finding of the Competent Authority that the petitioner is earning more than Rs. 1000.00 per month and as such has means to arrange for alternative accommodation in the event of his eviction, I am of the view that that finding cannot be reassessed or reappraised by this Court while considering the case under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(2) As per the pleadings and the affidavit two facts, namely, (1) that Smt. Putli Devi was a co-owner and in that capacity was entitled to her share of the rent of the premises in dispute and (2) that the gene- ral power of attorney which she had executed in favor of the applicant (respondent herein) had been revoked by her on 11th September, 1968, clearly emerge. The reference by the respondent in the replication to an earlier suit wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties herein had been decided, is of no help in deciding the question whether the application was maintainable without the consent of the co-owner Smt. Putli Devi or without her joining as aparty. The general power of attorney executed by her in favor of Padam Chand Jain in the year 1956 stood revoked by the public notice dated 11th September, 1968. Thereafter, Padam Chand Jain was not entitled to act on her behalf. The general power of attorney was revoked in accordance with law. The finding of the Competent Authority, thereforee, that that power of attorney remains in force and, thereforee, the applicant was entitled to file a suit as a sole landlord, is perverse. It is liable to be set aside.
(3) The result is that I accept this petition and set aside the impugned order passed on 15th May, 1973 by the Competent Authority and remand the matter to that Authority for reconsideration of the case in accordance with the observations made by me above and also in accordance with the provisions of law.
(4) BRIEF-FACTS: One Smt. Putli Devi had executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of Padam Chand Jain, respondent with respect to the impugned property, of which the respondent Padam Chand Jain was the Co-owner, along with the said Putli Devi. The General power of attorney was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi, on 6-10-1956. However by a public notice, she revoked the said general power of attorney. A copy of the public notice had appeared in the 'National Herald' of 11-9-1968. She also sent a legal notice to the respondent Padam Chand Jain, stating therein that the impugned property was jointly owned by her and as such she was entitled to receive rent from the tenants in respect of her share in the property.
(5) Padam Chand Jain, describing himself as 'landlord' filed an application under Section 19(1) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & clearance) Act, 1956, without giving any indication that he was filing the application on behalf of Smt. Putli Devi as well. The application was signed by him in his individual capacity. The tenants in the written statement referred to the public notice which appeared in the National Herald and also the legal notice which was sent by Smt. Putlii Devi, a copy of which had been sent to the tenant. In the replication, filed by Padam Chand Jain, it was averred that the relationship of the parties being landlord and tenant was not open to challenge as in an earlier litigation between them .it had been found to be so.
(6) The Competent Authority vide his order dated 15-5-1973 granted the permission to Padam Chand Jain, to institute eviction proceedings against the tenant, after holding that :
(A)the tenant's income was more than Rs. 1000.00 p.m. and, thereforee, he would be able to arrange for alternative accommodation if he was to be evicted.
(B)the objections of the tenant to the effect that as Padam Chand Jain was not the sole owner and landlord he was not entitled to file an application under Section 19 of the Act without joining the co-landlord, namely, Smt. Putli Devi was not well-founded.
(7) In the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, their Lordships refused to interfere with the finding that the tenant was earning more than Rs. 1000.00 p.m. However, the Hon'ble High Court came to the conclusion that the finding of the Competent Authority to the effect that Padam Chand Jain was the sole owner/ landlord was perverse and the order of the Competent Authority to that effect was set aside.