13. During submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has not restricted his grounds to the ones earlier raised but has raised the five following pleas. (i) First of all, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petition has been filed by the respondent in an incorrect name and the petition has been filed in the trade name of the petitioner and not in the name of tenant. (ii) The eviction petition does not disclose any cause of action and does not state the requisite particulars as required under Section 14(1)(e). (iii) That the eviction petition has not been filed by the respondent but by the son of the respondent through a Power of Attorney and the Power of Attorney states that it is an irrevocable power of attorney thereby implying that there is a transfer of title in favour of the son of the respondent and as such, the eviction petition is not maintainable. (iv) That since it is a case of additional accommodation, leave to defend ought to be granted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand Kiran 2011 (1) SCC 255. (v) That there was no tenancy created in favour of the petitioner. Since petitioner was a partner with the respondent and the alleged tenancy was created
