1 (1)SBCivil Writ Petition No.3426/2008 (Motilal v. Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sirohi & Ors.) (2)SBCivil Writ Petition No.3498/2008 (LRs. of Santosh Devi v. Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sirohi and others) Date of Order :: 22nd July, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Surendra Surana, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the respondents. .... These petitions for writ are preferred by the tenant to challenge the judgment dated 30.4.2008 passed by the learned Rent Appellant Tribunal, Sirohi affirming the judgment dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sirohi in Original Case No.7/2004. In brief, facts of the case are that landlord Smt. Lehari Bai preferred a suit for eviction of tenant from shop and a recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of bonafide necessity and default in payment of rent. The suit aforesaid was withdrawn on 8.9.2003 to file an application before the rent tribunal as per the provisions of Rent Control Act, 2001. Accordingly an application was filed, a reply to that was submitted by the petitioner and during pendency of the application aforesaid landlord Smt. Lehari Bai died on 22.7.2004. Subsequent thereto the rent tribunal framed the issues and ultimately 2 accepted the application. An appeal preferred to challenge the order passed by the rent tribunal also came to be rejected. The present petitions are preferred on two counts:- 1. the landlord never entered into witness box to support her case and as such no evidence was available to establish bonafide necessity; and 2. after death of original applicant Smt. Lehari Bai her legal representatives never authorised the earlier power of attorney holder to act and plead on their behalf. I have considered the arguments advanced. Power of attorney holder of the original applicant is her grand son and he submitted an affidavit on 9.4.2004 i.e. prior to death of original applicant. True it is, his cross examination was made on 4.8.2006, however, that will not effect his authority to sue in any manner as he submitted the application and made statement in chief by way of submitting an affidavit prior to death of Smt. Lehari Bai. A power of attorney is competent to appear as witness on behalf of his principal as held by this Court in Lt. Col. P.L.Bawa v. Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh, 2002(2) WLC (Raj.) 670. 3 The other argument of counsel for the petitioner that the issue regarding bonafide requirement could have been established only by the landlord is also not well founded in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Smt. Ramkubai v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3089. In the case aforesaid it was held that bonafide requirement is not a fact that could be established only by a landlord. So far as question regarding grant of authorisation by legal representatives of the original applicant to the power of attorney holder is concerned, i.e. of no consequence as the plaint and other documents were signed by power of attorney holder during the lifetime of Smt. Lehari Bai and his affidavit too was submitted prior to death of the original applicant. The petitioner never objected bringing of legal representatives on record and as a matter of fact even before this Court nothing is said that the legal representatives taken on record are not the real heirs of the original applicant. For the reasons above, I do not find any reason to disturb the concurrent findings given by the courts below. Accordingly the petitions for writ are dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.