NANDLAL Vs. ABDUL HAMID AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application for default filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant, the Rent Tribunal, Sikar closed the evidence on 3.9.2013, rejecting the application for allowing the son of the appellant, Shri Vinod Kumar, to be examined as a person holding Power of Attorney of the tenant. The application was rejected on the grounds that the Power of Attorney was not produced, and also that, sufficient opportunities have been given for producing the evidence. Learned Tribunal noticed that on 13.3.2013, Nandlal was operated for cataract. He sought repeated adjournments in following six months period on the ground that he has been asked for checkups by the doctor, after every fifteen days. Learned Tribunal thereafter, fixed 10.4.2013, 7.5.2013, 9.7.2013 and 13.8.2013. Shri Nandlal did not appear and made a request to examine his son on his behalf, for which, the original Power of Attorney was not produced. Learned Single Judge held that the Tribunal did not commit any error of law in closing the evidence, inasmuch as Shri Nandlal, the tenant was causing unnecessary delay in the matter. He was given sufficient opportunity to examine the witnesses, which he has failed to avail. Learned Single Judge thereafter, held as follows:-

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was suffering from cataract, for which he was operated. He is an old person, and was advised by the doctor for checkups. Since he could not appear, due to his illness, he requested his son to be examined, for which he also filed an affidavit. The Power of Attorney was in some other file, and thus, could not be produced on that date. It is submitted that the appellant as a tenant will suffer immensely, if the evidence is permitted to be closed.

(3.) We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the application for examining of the son as a Power of Attorney, in the absence of the original Power of Attorney. Sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant, after he had recovered from cataract operation. More than six months had passed, after the cataract operation, in which several dates were fixed for evidence. The appellant, did not avail the opportunities, on which the evidence is closed.