Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5113 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 9 of 2022 Revisionist :- Ram Avtar Gautam Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Aklavya,Deo Raj Singh,Dinesh Kumar,Mamta Rawat,Sarjoo Ram Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2021, whereby order of eviction has been passed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that property in occupation of the revisionist as a tenant is situate at DS-987/II, Ground Floor, Sitapur Yojana, Jankipurm, Lucknow. The suit in question was filed by the power of attorney holder of the owner claiming that in terms of the power of attorney executed in his favour, he was entitled to file a suit and in terms of said power of attorney a notice was served under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and the Suit for rent and eviction was filed. The revisionist, who is a tenant, amongst other grounds took a ground that in between the real owner a suit being Suit No.34 of 2014 was filed, which was decided on 16.04.2016 and thereafter, the property in question was purchased by the owner, however, no information was given. Based upon the evidence laid, points of determination were framed, while determining the point no.2, a notice was properly served and while determining the issue no.1, the trial court after considering the evidence held that the suit was filed by power of attorney holder of the owner, who became the owner by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour and held that on the basis of power of attorney executed, the plaintiff was entitled to institute a suit, while deciding point of determination no.3, a clear finding was recorded that the revisionist has erred in paying the rent and also did not have any evidence to establish that the rent was paid to anyone else. 4. In view of the said finding of fact, the suit in question was ultimately decreed in favour of the landlord. Assailing the said finding, learned counsel for the revisionist argues that in the earlier proceedings being Suit No.34 of 2014, a similar suit was dismissed and thereafter, the property was purchased, however, no information was given to the tenant, as such the tenant cannot be faulted for not payment of rent. Said argument needs to be rejected for the sole reason that there appears to be no attempt by the revisionist to deposit the rent in court by tendering the same in the proceedings, which were pending. No evidence was laid or any cross examination was done to discredit the power of attorney, it was rightly believed by the JSC court. Admittedly no rent has been paid by the revisionist. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the impugned judgement. The revision is dismissed. 5. The opposite party would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Anupam S/- Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench