IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3768 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 4.2.2010 Suresh Kumari ......Appellant(s) Versus Jasbir Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anant Bir Singh Sarao, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the house in dispute has been decreed. As per the averments, the house was owned and possessed by respondent No.1 and the defendant-appellant was inducted as tenant in the aforesaid house i.e House No.106, Phase-2, SAS Nagar Mohali District Ropar, by Darshan Singh respondent No.2 being his Power of Attorney. In the written statement filed by the appellant, though it was admitted that she was inducted as tenant in the house in dispute by Darshan Singh on the basis of Power of Attorney of Jasbir Singh, however, it was further submitted that she is not liable to be evicted on the asking of the plaintiff-respondents as the Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Darshan Singh is forged and respondent No.1, who is alleged to be the owner of the property, is not the original Jasbir Singh and she could not be evicted on the basis of forged documents. Both the Courts below found that in view of the fact that relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties, the appellant was estopped from challenging the same and the plaintiff- RSA No.3768 of 2009(O&M) -2- respondents were entitled to the possession of the disputed house and decreed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the present appeal was filed by defendant-appellant through Sh. Jasdeep Singh Gill and Sh. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocates. The aforesaid Advocates duly represented the appellant on various dates since its filing on 24.7.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 1.2.2010 had asked the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent along with interest as per the impugned decree. However, the aforesaid order has not been complied with by the appellant. Today, Sh. J.S. Gill, Advocate, is present in Court and has pleaded no instructions. Sh. Sanjiv Ghia, Advocate is not present. At this stage, Sh. J.S. Bains, Advocate has submitted that he be allowed to represent the appellant and has submitted his memo of appearance. Mr. Bains is unable to produce the vakalatnama in his favour to represent the appellant with no objection from the learned counsel through whom the instant appeal was filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to allow Sh. J.S. Bains, Advocate to represent the appellant in this appeal. Since the appellant is not represented, this Court has no alternative but to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution. Dismissed for non-prosecution. February 4, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE