S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.215/2008 Smt. Eaiman Noor Bee & Ors. Vs. Rajkumari Gang & Ors. Date:02/09/2008 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ASHOK PARIHAR Mr. J.K. Yadav, for appellants. Mr. Rajesh Mootha, for respondents. BY THE COURT: A suit for eviction, recovery of rent and declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondents was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2002 on the ground of denial of title, termination of tenancy as also default. The above judgment and decree passed by the trial court has further been affirmed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008. Hence, the present appeal challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the matter was argued by a Judicial Officer before the trial court which is against the judicial propriety. The objection in regard to proper compliance of provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act has also been raised. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. As has been observed in detail by the lower appellate court that being legal heir of the original plaintiff as also power of attorney holder, concerned Officer submitted a proper application for permission to argue the matter before the trial court. The permission was duly granted by the trial court. Such order in regard to granting permission was never challenged by the defendant- appellants. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the appellants could not show any law that a person, moreso, been a power of attorney holder cannot argue his case before the court after seeking proper permission. Learned counsel for the appellants also could not point out any illegality or error apparent on the face of record to show any bias or prejudice of the presiding officers in deciding the matter. On the basis of concurrent findings of fact since after due consideration proper discretion has already been used by both the courts below, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this court, moreso, when no substantial question of law arises. However, in the interest of justice, the defendant- appellants may now vacate the suit premises on or before 1.11.2008. An undertaking in this regard be submitted by the defendant-appellants before the trial court within 15 days. In case of violation of any of the conditions of undertaking, the plaintiff-respondent shall be free to execute the decrees passed by the courts below in accordance with law. With the above liberty and directions, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Ashok Parihar) J.