Civil Revision No. 1696 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1696 of 2008 Date of Decision:November 27, 2009 Radhey Shyam ---Petitioner versus Raj Kumar ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner None for the respondent. *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioner-landlord-Radhey Shyam has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 24.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) and 18.12.2007(Annexure P-2) passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, Hisar, respectively, vide which his ejectment application for the ejectment of Raj Kumar-respondent- tenant from the demised shop, situated in Ganesh Bhawan, Tilak Bazar, Hisar, was dismissed. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner filed ejectment application for the ejectment Civil Revision No. 1696 of 2008 {2} of the respondent from the shop in dispute on the ground that he requires the same for running his business along with his son, who is now 16 years old and that he is neither the owner or tenant in the entire country nor has vacated any shop after coming into force the Act of 1949. The stand of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent on the ground that this ground has been fabricated as the petitioner and his family are big landlords of Hisar City and own many residential and non-residential buildings. They have been getting the shops vacated from the tenants. The petitioner is doing the business of electronics under the name and style of Soni Electronics in his own shop situated just opposite to the demised shop and in order to expand his business, he has shifted to Delhi where he is also doing the business of electronics in Lajpat Market. Previously also, he filed an eviction petition on the ground that the demised premises was required for his residence and that application was dismissed. Specific issue was framed by the learned Rent Controller regarding this ground. The parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective pleas. The petitioner examined his attorney Surender Kumar as PW-1 besides tendering some documents in evidence. On the other hand, the respondent examined Raj Kumar as RW-2 and Sanjeev Khanna, Tax Assistant as DW-1. After going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned Rent Controller decided the issue against the petitioner, who preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that he was not able to prove that he required the demised shop bona fide for his personal use and occupation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have Civil Revision No. 1696 of 2008 {3} carefully gone through the records of the case. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority suffers from illegality as the evidence produced for proving the ground of personal necessity has not been properly appreciated. The statement of Surender Kumar, power of attorney of the petitioner, has been brushed aside on the ground that the petitioner himself has not entered into the witness box. The power of attorney is competent witness and his statement should have been treated as sufficient for proving the personal necessity of the petitioner. It was wrongly concluded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is already doing his business at Delhi and does not require the demised shop for his personal use and occupation. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on Vairam and others vs. M.S.R. Nageshwaran 2007(2) RCR 130, Bhimappa and others v. Allisab and others 2006(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 174, Kailashi Devi vs. Matadeen Agrawal and others 2002 (1) Civil Court Cases 39, Smt. Gangavva v. Arjunsa 2001(2)Civil Court Cases 481 and Kishan Lal v. Smt. Shanti Devi 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 43. He prayed that the revision be accepted and the respondent be ejected from the demised shop. In the above rulings, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that the power of attorney is a competent witness and can be examined on behalf of the party. His evidence cannot be refused to be taken into consideration on the ground of non-appearance of the plaintiff, who can prove his case through evidence of the power of attorney. Civil Revision No. 1696 of 2008 {4} It is now well settled that a power of attorney is competent to depose only about the facts about which he has personal knowledge. He cannot depose about the facts which are exclusively in the knowledge of the party for whom he is examined in the Court. Normal rules is that whatever a person can do himself he can do through his agent but for certain functions which may be personal in nature or otherwise, did not admit such a delegation. It is only when the party is ill, old or incapable of attending the court personally, then he may be represented by his attorney to make a statement on his or her behalf. It has been held by this Court in Kaushalya Devi vs. Bhupinder Kumar @ Bhupinder Saini 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 222 that a power of attorney cannot bring the true facts on the record. Only a party itself can make correct and true facts. It is well settled that if the power of attorney renders some acts in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. He also cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matters for which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined . He is competent to depose in respect of the matters except the matters which are required to be done personally by the principal. As the petitioner was to prove his personal necessity, so in all fairness, he was required to step into the witness box himself. He was to be cross examined by the respondent regarding the facts to be deposed by him for proving his personal necessity. For proving such a ground, the statement of the attorney cannot be substituted as the statement of the party himself. Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority relied upon the evidence produced by the respondent for proving that the petitioner is Civil Revision No. 1696 of 2008 {5} already carrying on his business at Delhi,. That evidence consisted of the records of the Income Tax Authorities. The income tax returns of the petitioner were proved which showed that he had been doing business in the name of Ganesh Electronics, Tilak Bazar, Hisar. The petitioner did not step into the witness box to deny these income tax returns. So full reliance is placed thereon. On account of his non-appearance in the witness box, the respondent has been denied the valuable right of cross-examining him regarding carrying on his business at that place. In the circumstances of the present case, the statement of the power of attorney is to be treated as statement of the witness and not the statement of the party himself. Therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against the petitioner for not appearing in the witness box. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any such illegality or infirmity. There is no ground for interfering in that finding while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 27, 2009 PARAMJIT