Skip to main content

Evidence of general attorney is acceptable, where the affairs of a party are looked after by an attorney or a close family member

In Prem Vs. Maninder Kaur Kwatra, an ejectment application was filed by the respondent-landlady seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the grounds that he had failed to pay or tender the rent for the demised premises since January 2016 and further that the respondent-landlady bonafidely required the demised premises for her own personal use and occupation and that the respondent-landlady or her son were not occupying any other such building in the urban area of SAS Nagar and had also not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in the urban area of Mohali.

The ejectment application was contested by the petitioner-tenant contending that the same had been filed to cause harassment and financial loss to the petitioner-tenant by dragging him in unwanted litigation on the basis of false allegations merely to increase the rent of the demised premises.

Preet Inder Singh, son of the respondent-landlady, being her GPA holder, stepped into the witness box as PW1 while the petitioner-tenant himself stepped into the witness box as RW1.

The Rent Controller, while allowing the ejectment application, rejected the argument raised by the petitioner-tenant that since the respondent-landlady had failed to step into the witness box to prove the contents of the ejectment application and, therefore, the evidence led on her behalf by way of affidavit of her son, being her General Attorney, could not be looked into. The Rent Controller held that, admittedly, not only was the rent being paid to the son of the respondent-landlady but further that the son of the respondent-landlady, who appeared as GPA holder of the respondent-landlady, was well conversant with the facts of the present case and, therefore, was competent to depose. Appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed.

Before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, while challenging the order of the Appellate Authority the only ground objection raised by the petitioner-tenant was that the respondent-landlady did not step into the witness-box to testify as to her personal bona fide necessity and thus the testimony of her son PW1, Preet Inder Singh, who appeared in the witness box as her General Attorney, was not admissible in evidence regarding matters of her personal knowledge. 

The High Court dismissing the petition observed that it is by now well settled that a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from the tenanted premises not only for his or her need but even for the need of a closely related person. In the present case the eviction petition was filed by the respondent-landlady pleading the bona fide need of the demised premises for her son to start his business. Such an eviction petition was clearly maintainable by the respondent-landlady under the provisions of the Act. Further, as per law settled by the Apex Court in 'Man Kaur (Dead) through LRs vs. Hartar Singh Sangha', MANU/SC/0789/2010 : 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 189, where a landlord seeks eviction of his tenant on the ground of his bona fide need, normally the landlord himself has to give evidence and not an attorney. However, there is an exception to the aforesaid requirement i.e. where the affairs of a party are managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney and such attorney happens to be a close family member, it would certainly be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the ejectment application had been filed under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioner specifically raising a plea that the same is required by the respondent-landlady for her son to start his business, after raising some construction. The General Attorney of the respondent-landlady who deposed in support of the averments made in the ejectment application is none other but this very son of her's. Thus, the son of the respondent-landlady could definitely depose in support of the averments made in the ejectment application without the respondent-landlady stepping into the witness box. Similar view has been taken in 'Shere Punjab Trading Co. & Anr. vs. Smt. Uma Rani Mohindru', MANU/PH/1209/2019 : 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 102; 'M/s. Hind Sons Agency & Ors. vs. Sh. Jai Parkash Jain', MANU/PH/3703/2011 : 2012(1) RCR (Rent) 92; and 'Chuni Lal Chaudhary vs. Rakesh Bakshi', MANU/PH/0554/2017 : 2017(1) RCR (Rent) 516. Thus, merely because the respondent-landlady has not appeared as a witness in the case and her General Attorney appeared, which General Attorney was none other than her own son, is no ground to non-suit the respondent-landlady. There is, thus, no merit in the sole contention argued by the counsel for the petitioner-tenant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more