Shri Javed vs Smt. Kasturi Devi
2010 Latest Caselaw 1289 Del

                 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                        Date of Order: 8th March, 2010

CM (M) No. 306/2010
%                                                                           08.03.2010

       Shri Javed                                         ... Petitioner
                              Through: Ms. Protima Parihar, Advocate

               Versus


       Smt. Kasturi Devi                                    ... Respondent


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORDER (ORAL)

By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 7th January,

2010 of the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby an appeal of the

petitioner against the order of learned Additional Rent Controller allowing eviction

petition was dismissed.

The only argument advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner is that

the landlady herself did not appear in the witness box and her General Power of

Attorney appeared as a witness and testified. She submitted that the learned ARC

went wrong in relying on the testimony of the attorney and passing eviction order and

then the learned ARCT went wrong in upholding the eviction order.

Any person who is aware of the facts can lawfully depose in the Court.

There is no bar on an attorney of landlord appearing in the witness box and deposing

about the facts of which he/she has personal knowledge. The judgment relied upon

by the petitioner viz. Janki Vasheo Bhojwani & Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors.

2005 RLR 308 (SC) does not state that an attorney of a principal cannot appear and

depose in the Court. The judgment only states that the evidence of the attorney

should be restricted to the facts of his/her knowledge or the knowledge derived from

the books or documents. He/she cannot depose all those facts of which he/she has

no personal knowledge and which are in the special knowledge of the principal. It is

not the case of the petitioner that attorney in this case deposed about those facts

which were not in his knowledge. I, therefore, find no force in the argument raised by

the petitioner.

In view of the concurrent finding given by the Courts below about non-

payment of rent and the second default because of non-compliance of the order

under Section 15(1) of DRC Act I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby

dismissed.

March 08, 2010                                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn