1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6135 OF 2010 (Ramesh G. Vora vs. The Principal District Judge, Akola & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 23, 2010. Heard Shri Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant who did not file written statement before the Small Cause Court. He proceeded to cross examine the witnesses examined by landlady, suffered a decree for eviction under Section 15 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act and then also lost in appeal. His contention is, the witness examined was not holding a valid power of attorney and in any case as the landlady (Respondent No. 2) did not enter witness box, the decree could not have been passed. It is also urged that the payment made by the petitioner and his stand that there was no arrears have not been appropriately appreciated. The petitioner is not in a position to point out any prejudice suffered by him because landlady herself did not enter the witness box. In absence of such prejudice, it is apparent that the other contention about validity or otherwise of Power of Attorney is totally 2 irrelevant. The Power of Attorney has been examined and though this Court called upon the petitioner to point out any prejudice from his cross examination, the petitioner is not in a position to point out that as alleged Power of Attorney entered the witness box, an opportunity of effective cross examination has been denied to the petitioner. As there was no written statement filed, both the courts have correctly appreciated the controversy. I am, therefore, no inclined to interfere in the matter. Petition is rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.