The main legal point established in the judgment is that for proving personal necessity in ejectment cases, the party himself must provide evidence and cannot solely rely on the testimony of the power of attorney. Additionally, the limitations of the power of attorney's testimony were highlighted, emphasizing that it can only depose about facts within his personal knowledge.

Gurdev Singh, J.

1. Petitioner-landlord-Radhey Shyam has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 24.4.2006 (Annexure P-l) and 18.12.2007(Annexure P-2) passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, Hisar, respectively, vide which his ejectmerit application for the ejectment of Raj Kumar-respondent tenant from the demised shop, situated in Ganesh Bhawan, Tilak Bazar, Hisar, was dismissed.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner filed ejectment application for the ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute on the ground that he requires the same for running his business along with his son, who is now 16 years old and that he is neither the owner or tenant in the entire country nor has vacated any shop after coming into force the Act of 1949. The stand of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent on the ground that this ground has been fabricated as the petitioner and his family are big landlords of Hisar City and own many residential and non-residential buildings. They have been getting the shops vacated from the tenants. The petitioner is doing the business of electronics under the name and style of Soni Electronics in his own shop situated just opposite to the demised shop and in order to expand his business, he has shifted to Delhi where he is also doing the business of electronics in Lajpat Market. Previously also, he filed an eviction petition on the ground that the demised premises was required for his residence and that application was dismissed. Specific issue was framed by the learned Rent Controller regarding this ground. The parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective pleas. The petitioner examined his attorney Surender Kumar as PW-1 besides tendering some documents in evidence. On the other hand, the respondent examined Raj Kumar as RW-2 and Sanjeev Khanna, Tax Assistant as DW-1. After going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned Rent Controller decided the issue against the petitioner, who preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that he was not able to prove that he required the demised shop bona fide for his personal use and occupation.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the records of the case. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority suffers from illegality as the evidence produced for proving the ground of personal necessity has not been properly appreciated. The statement of Surender Kumar, power of attorney of the petitioner, has been brushed aside on the ground that the petitioner himself has not entered into the witness box. The power of attorney is competent witness and his statement should have been treated as sufficient for proving the personal necessity of the petitioner. It was wrongly concluded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is already doing his business at Delhi and does not require the demised shop for his personal use and occupation. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on Vairam and others v. M.S.R. Nageshwaran,2007(2) RCR 130, Bhimappa and others v. Allisab and others, 2006(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 660 : 2006(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 174, Kailashi Devi v. Matadeen Agrawal and others, 2002 (1) Civil Court Cases 39, Smt. Gangavva v. Arjunsa, 2001 (2) Civil Court Cases 481 and Kishan Lal v. Smt. ShantiDevi, 2002(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 345:2002(2) Civil Court Cases 43. He prayed that the revision be accepted and the respondent be ejected from the demised shop.

4. In the above rulings, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that the power of attorney is a competent witness and can be examined on behalf of the party. His evidence cannot be refuse