Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2014 0 Supreme (Mad.) 2522.

He therefore prayed that, the present Petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned Orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

15 Mr. Thatte, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, in opposition to the Petition submitted that, the Power of Attorney dated 3rd October, 2002 (page 62 of the Petition) is a sham and bogus document, as no number of Notarial Register appears thereon. He submitted that, the Advocate/Notary who has notarized the said document does not enjoy good reputation. That, on an earlier occasion, a Compliant bearing No. 6 of 2005 was filed against him for notarizing a similar type of document and the Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai by its Order dated 25 th February, 2008, while dismissing the said complaint, had admonished the said person and had warned him to be careful in future while notarizing documents. He tendered across the bar and produced on record photocopies of the said Complaint bearing No. 6 of 2005 and ssm 15 wp7982.18-8.5.2020-final.doc the Order dated 25th February, 2008 passed therein by the Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. He submitted that, no tenancy could have been created in favour of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, on the basis of such a Power of Attorney. He pointed out, the replies filed by the Petitioners to the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1, wherein it has been pleaded by them that, the Respondent No.1 was suffering from mental depression, poor health and physical constrains which did not allow him to think and behave rationally. That, the Respondent No.1 is suffering from mental illness and has taken an opportunity to exploit and misuse a genuine Social Welfare Act. He submitted that, if the Petitioners were aware of the fact that the Respondent No.1 was not in a good and proper mental condition then, said Power of Attorney dated 3rd October, 2002 ought not have been used further at all by the Petitioners.