: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4655 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4655 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4655 OF 2005 Dara E.Amrolia and others ).. Petitioenrs Versus Minoo Shroff and others .. Respondents Ms.F.D.Contractor for the Petitioner. Mr.R.H.Mirja for the Respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 18TH JULY 2005 DATED: 18TH JULY 2005 DATED: 18TH JULY 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Petition challenges the concurrent findings of facts of the trial Court and the Appellate Court. The grounds urged by the Petitioners that the Suit itself was not maintainable since it was filed by Power of Attorney holder, secondly, both the Courts below have erred in concluding that there was no protection available to the Petitioners either under Section 5(11)(c) or under Section 15A of the Rent Act. 2. I have already held in Writ Petition No.4627 of 2005 that Power of Attorney holder could have filed the Suit specially since no such averment has been made in the Written Statement. On merits, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the Petitioners were not : 2 : the family members of the original tenant. Furthermore, the trial Court has observed that the Petitioners were in occupation of the premises as unlawful occupants. They were not sub-tenants. There was no consideration exchanged between the original tenant and the Petitioners nor were the Petitioners in exclusive possession of the suit premises. These findings have not been challenged by the Petitioners by filing Cross Objections. An Appeal was preferred by the Respondents since the Suit was dismissed as not maintainable by the trial Court. 3. There is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Court. Writ Petition rejected.