1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2008 1. Prafulla Medical Stores, Through it's partners, 1-A) Jayesh S/o Kirankant Bharwada Age : 45 years, Occ : Business, R/o Sarojinidevi Road, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. 1-B)Sunitaben W/o Kirankant Bharwada Age : 68 years, Occ : Household, R/o As above. APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. Jamshed S/o Nariman Maroliya Age : 65 years, Occ : Business, R/o Jalna, at present CIDCO, Aurangabad. 2. Kirankant S/o Shantilal Bharwada Since Deceased Through L.Rs. 2(A) Saurabh S/o Kirankant Bharwada Age : 39 years, Occ : Business, 2(B) Gaurav S/o Kirankant Bharwada Age : 29 years, Occ : Business, Both R/o Sarojanidevi Road, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. 2(C) Deeptiben W/o Ajay Vaidya Age : 45 years, Occ : Household, R/o Narmada Sadan Satsang Bhavan, New Raja Kishan Plot Akola House, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. 2 2(D) Kalpanaben W/o Ashishkumar Mehta Age : 35 years, Occ : Household, R/o Ravi Seeds Cotton Market, Narmada Complex, Amravati, At Post. Amravati. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S. V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for appellants. Mr.P. V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel for respondent no.1. .... (CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J) DATE :18th January, 2010. ------------------------------ ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This is Tenant's revision seeking to challenge the order of the learned First Appellate Court, who decreed the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord by passing the orders in Regular Civil Appeal No.260/2006 dated 26.09.2008, arising out of eviction proceedings being Regular Civil suit No.253/2005 in terms of section 16(1)(a)(g) and (i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 2. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the parties, the crux and root revolves to the general power of attorney executed in favour of attorney holder namely Govind Ambadas Pakhare 3 (Exhibit-35) before the learned Court. 3. This general power of attorney in Marathi does not contemplates that Attorney has any authority, right vest to him to initiate eviction proceedings or any proceedings in respect to the property. What is mentioned in the general power of attorney executed by the plaintiff is, in the event of any dispute raised by anybody else, the attorney to defend the same, engage Advocate and give evidence. He was also authorised to carry construction activities in respect of the said property. 4. In the situation, I need not to deal and dissect contentions of the parties for bonafide requirement or about so called default, as the fact remains very authority given to Shri.Govind Ambadas Pakhare and holding general power of attorney is short to allow him to prosecute the matter. 5. The learned First Appellate Court certainly erred in reversing the findings recorded in Regular Civil Suit No.253/2005 whereby the suit was dismissed. 4 6. The order under challenge, lacks merits, therefore, civil revision application allowed, no costs. 5. Liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, if cause of action accrues to the landlord. (K. U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE gas/cra177.08