Civil Revision No.5392 of 2008(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5392 of 2008(O & M) Date of decision 07.01.2009 Gomti Devi and others .....Appellants versus Inder Kumar Aggarwal .....Respondent Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate with Mr. D. S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. K. Kannan, J. 1. The revision petitioner/tenant assails the order of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority which have concurrently held that the landlord has established two grounds that have been enumerated in the petition, namely non-occupation of the premises for a period of 8 years prior to the filing of the petition and that the property is unfit and unsuitable for human habitation. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found evidence sufficient to merit consideration in favour of the petitioner to order eviction. Yet another ground of eviction which was sought viz. non-payment of rent became unnecessary for adjudication, having regard to the fact that the tenant tendered rent at the first hearing of the petition and therefore the said ground was not necessary for adjudication. 2. The only point which is urged strenuously by counsel for the revision petitioner is that the landlord himself did not take the witness stand to give evidence but he had given evidence only through his power of attorney. He laid stress on the proposition of law that a power of attorney Civil Revision No.5392 of 2008(O & M) -2- who does not have a direct knowledge of the affairs of the litigation could not be permitted to adduce oral evidence. There is no general rule of law that a power of attorney cannot give evidence on behalf of the principal. It all depends on whether the person adducing evidence has necessary knowledge of the relevant particulars. The Rent Controller has found the evidence regarding non-occupation of the building and the condition of the building as unfit and uninhabitable on due consideration of all evidence. I am not persuaded to take any view different from how the issues have been decided by the authorities below. No illegality or error in appreciation of evidence, documentary or oral, has been shown before me to take a different view. 3. The counsel for the petitioner seeks sometime for eviction. Having regard to the concurrent finding of the facts that the property is not in the possession of the tenant and he has ceased occupying the same, I do not find it necessary to grant any further time. The order of eviction by Court below is confirmed. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 07.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL