RAIPUR LITHO WORKS Vs. MEENAKSHI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant was heard on admission. Record of Civil Suit No. 160A/2002 and Civil Appeal No. 4A/2006 is perused. This is the defendant/tenant's second appeal.

(2.) CIVIL Suit No. 160 A/2002 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff before the 6th Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur (henceforth 'the trial Court') for eviction of the appellant herein on grounds under Sections 12 (1) (f) and (h) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 24th November, 2006. Affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in to, first appeal by the tenant (Civil Appeal No. 4A/2006) was dismissed by the 12th Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Raipur (henceforth "the lower appellate Court') vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.2007. Both the Courts below have held that respondent/plaintiff had proved that she required the House No. 15/517 situated in Jawaharnagar Ward, Raipur (for short 'the suit house') bona fide for starting the hotel business for her son Sanjay Gupta, who was a graduate and also for re-building the suit house for the said purpose, which work could not be carried out without the suit house being vacated.

(3.) ON the question of power of attorney, the High Courts have divergent views. In the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri vs. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 2 WLN 713 (Raj) it was held that a general power-of-attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in the witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general power-of-attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff. The aforesaid judgment was quoted with approval in the case of Ram Prasad vs. Hari Narain, : AIR 1998 Raj 185. It was held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order 3 CPC does not include the act of power-of-attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. Power-of-attorney holder of a party can appear only as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever knowledge he has about the case he can state on oath but he cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. If the plaintiff is unable to appear in the court, a commission for recording his evidence may be issued under the relevant provisions of CPC.