: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4627 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4627 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4627 OF 2005 Aspi D. Elavia and another ).. Petitioners Versus Mr.Minoo R.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 order of the Appellate Court which has decreed the Suit filed by the Respondents herein. The Respondents are trustees of a trust known as Parsi Panchayat Funds and Properties and also of N.N.Wadia and R.N.Wadia Trust. The Petitioners claimed to be family members of the original tenant and, therefore, seek protection under the Rent Act. The trial Court has found that the Petitioners were not family members and, therefore, were not entitled to protection under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. The Appellate Court has upheld this finding. However, the trial Court had held that there was no proof of sub-letting by the original Defendant-tenant and, therefore, dismissed the Suit. The Appellate Court has : 2 : rightly found that if at all the Petitioners were entitled to possession of the suit premises it was only if they were lawful tenants. Admittedly, they occupied the premises only in 1987. Furthermore, they are not the family members of the original Defendant and therefore have no right to remain in the premises. Nor do they have any right to the protection afforded under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. Therefore, the Appellate Court was right in decreeing the Suit. 2. An additional ground has been raised that the Suit itself was not maintainable as the Plaint and the verification were signed by a person who claimed to be Power of Attorney holder of the trustees. It is submitted that the trustees are delegates of the trust and they cannot in turn delegate their power to Power of Attorney holder. Reliance is placed on Section 47 of Bombay Public Trust Act. It is further submitted that assuming the trustees could have delegated their powers to the person who signed the verification, there was nothing on record to show that he was indeed the Power of Attorney holder of the trustees. In such circumstances, the Suit ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable. 3. The Appellate Court has considered this submission and has differed with the view taken by the : 3 : trial Court. On perusal of the pleadings, the Appellate Court has rightly found that there was no challenge or plea regarding the locus standi of the Power of Attorney holder to sign the pleadings, nor was there any cross-examination on this point of PW1 who claimed to be Power of Attorney holder. I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Appellate Court. Hence, Petition dismissed.