JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J. 1. A suit filed by the respondents/landlords for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) came to be dismissed. An appeal was preferred. This appeal has been allowed. The first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide. It is against this judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. It be seen that the suit was filed by the power of attorney holder of the landlords who figure as respondents in this appeal. Two power of attornies were placed on record. These have been exhibited as P-1 and P-2. P-1 is a power of attorney in favour of Sitaram. This was executed by Ram Dayal and Bhagwati Prasad. Second attorney stands exhibited as P-2. This is again in favour of Sitaram. This has been executed by Satish Chandra, Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar. 3. In the plaint the need which was projected be noticed : In Para-4, it was pleaded that respondent No. 1 has six children. In total there are eight family members. These eight members include respondent himself and his wife. Respondent No. 2 had four children. He has total seven members in his family. This include his widowed mother and himself. Respondent No. 3 has total number of four members including two children and wife. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, the constitution of the family is two only i.e. respondent No. 4 and his wife. In addition to this it was indicated that respondent No. 3 and 4 have two sisters. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 3 and 4 have their parents and respondents No. 1 had his mother also. In this manner the total family members were totaled as 26. So far as the accommodation is concerned it was pointed out that there are six rooms and a patore. The requisite assertions was made in para-6 of the plaint. 4. The plaint is signed by Sitaram. In this he stated that he is attorney holder of four respondents. 5. Written statement was filed. 6. The need of the landlord was denied. 7. The matter was put to trial. 8. The statement of parties were recorded. 9. Only attoney appearned in the witness box. His statement stands recorded as Pw.-1. In the statement he stated that he holds valid power of attorney. 5. Written statement was filed. 6. The need of the landlord was denied. 7. The matter was put to trial. 8. The statement of parties were recorded. 9. Only attoney appearned in the witness box. His statement stands recorded as Pw.-1. In the statement he stated that he holds valid power of attorney. The photostate copies of these were placed on record. This was duly exhibited as P-1 and P-2. He stated that he is looking alter the family affairs since long and is fully conversant with the facts of the case. With regard to the strength of the family he gave information in paragraph 4, 5, 6 & 7 of his statement. The total family members were counted as 28. He however admitted that so far as Satish Chandra is concerned he is an employee of the irrigation department and is posted outside Gwalior. He however, stated that whenever there is some family get-together all these family members come and stay at Gwalior. With regard to Ashok Kumar he stated that he is a practicing advocate and practices at Dabra. He however, made an attempt to point out that this Ashok Kumar does come to Gwalior also. He however admitted that all family members of Ashok Kumar are staying at Gwalior and his children are having their education at Dabra. He stated that so far as Ashok Kumar is concerned he practices at Dabra and Gwalior but was unable to point out that Ashok Kumar is member of Gwalior Bar Association. In para 11 of the statement he stated that the plaintiff respondents have eight rooms with them. It was stated that in this accommodation the family members arc staying. One room was said to be used for religious purposes. A room was also used for storing foodgrains. This aspect of the matter was reiterated when he was cross-examined. He stated mat in addition of eight rooms there are four kitchen, three latrines and three bathrooms. Errection of the house commenced in the year 1973 was completed in 1974. It was also admitted that one of the tenants had vacated the premises and the premises vacated by him are in the possession of the landlord and these were not relet. It was also stated that sometime food is cooked in common kitchen and sometime separately also. Errection of the house commenced in the year 1973 was completed in 1974. It was also admitted that one of the tenants had vacated the premises and the premises vacated by him are in the possession of the landlord and these were not relet. It was also stated that sometime food is cooked in common kitchen and sometime separately also. On the date when he was examined in the Court he again recounted the family member. After pointing out the family members who had since died and who had taken birth, it was pointed out that total family members arc twenty six. 10. The future evidence which has been brought on the record is in the shape of school certificates. These pertains to the children to Bhagwati Prasad. These have been placed on the record as Ex's P-2. P-5 and P-8. P-5 pertains to the daughter by the name of Padma Shrivastava. She was student of B.A. IInd year. P-2 is a certificate regarding Bibha Shri vastava. P-3 is the progress report of Ku. Asha Shrivastava. There is another certificate pertaining to Neelam Shrivasta. Ex. P-8 is a letter indicating that Shri Bhagwati Prasad has been transferred to Gwalior. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that if the evidence is taken on its face value then it becomes apparent that Satish Chandra and Ashok Kumar are not residing at Gwalior and therefore their need cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the bona fide need of the plaintiffs. It has also been argued that Bhagwati Prasad was not posted at Gwalior and no suit was filed for his need. 12. Another argument, which has been raised is that during the pendency of the litigation, the body of landlords has raised further construction. Addition of two rooms is said to have been made. It is also argued that Vijay Kumar is not landlord. 13. Even if it be presumed that Satish Chandra and Ashok Kumar are not residing at Gwalior even then it has come on the record that Bhagwati Prasad has got six children. Vijay Kumar may not be a landlord but is staying in part of the premises. He is staying with his wife and two children. 14. 13. Even if it be presumed that Satish Chandra and Ashok Kumar are not residing at Gwalior even then it has come on the record that Bhagwati Prasad has got six children. Vijay Kumar may not be a landlord but is staying in part of the premises. He is staying with his wife and two children. 14. It be seen that the first appellate court has come to the conclusion that the need of the landlord stands proved in terms of Section 12 (1) (e) of the 1961's Act. I am of the Opinion that no fault can be found with the view expressed by the first appellate Court. Even if Vijay Kumar is not considerated to be a landlord, the fact remains that he is occupying part of the premises and that much accommodation is not available to the other landlords. This argument could have been available to the appellant had a petition been filed, for seeking the eviction for the need of Vijay Kumar alone. What has been stressed is that Vijay Kumar is already in occupation of some rooms and even if he is not a landlord the accommodation available with him cannot be said to be available with a view to accommodate the children of Bhagwati Prasad. 15. If the number of children of Bhagwati Prasad alone is considered even then (he need would be bonafide. It has come on the record that Bhagwati Prasad has six children. He has a wife also. When the suit was filed he was posted at Morena Vide Ex. P-8. Bhagwati stands posted at Gwalior. The need of the parents even if they arc not at Gwalior and when they visit the family is a factor which cannot be ignored. Some accommodation has to be kept apart for them. All the children arc grown up. One room is being used exclusively for worship purposes. It has also come on record that sister of Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar are married. They keep on visiting the family whenever there is a family get together. One cannot forget Indian tradition. On the marriage of daughters, they keep on visiting their parents. A provision for them in the accommodation has also to be considered. It has also come on record that sister of Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar are married. They keep on visiting the family whenever there is a family get together. One cannot forget Indian tradition. On the marriage of daughters, they keep on visiting their parents. A provision for them in the accommodation has also to be considered. If all these factors arc taken into consideration then it cannot be said that the accommodation which now consist of about 10 rooms is enough for the family members of Bhagwati Prasad and also for Vijay Kumar. The fact that some accommodation became available and was not let would again be factor which would go in favour of the landlord. The landlord would definitely be a short of accommodation and it was for this reason alone the rented premises were not let. The present suit was tiled in the year 1984. Taking into consideration the fact that the need of the family has been expanding, the landlord resorted to further construction of four rooms. This again does not go against the landlord. This only shows that the need of the family is on the increase and for this, further accommodation is required. 16. It has also come on the record that in the adjoining accommodation another old relation of landlord was staying. Therefore, that accommodation is also not available now to the landlords. The accommodation with the present appellant/tenant consists of two rooms. These two rooms would definitely be of much use and would definitely meet the need of the landlord's family. 17. As such, finding recorded by the first appellate Court holding that the need of the family is genuine cannot be said to be such which require any modification in this appeal. It would not be apt for the Courts to substitute its own view in this regard. 18. In Mattu Lal v. Radhey Lal, 1974 RCR 441; it was pointed out that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough but there should be an element of need and the landlord must show that he genuinely required the accommodation. When the need can be said to be only a desire and when it is genuinely required, cannot be tested on the criteria of the absolute necessity. When the need can be said to be only a desire and when it is genuinely required, cannot be tested on the criteria of the absolute necessity. The meaning of bona fide requirement was considered in S.N. Datta v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1984 (1) ARC 113, as follows :- Mere desire or absolute need or necessity arc both it has been held, erroneous approaches in this behalf, vide Janki Pd. IInd Additional District Judge and others, 1980 (UP) RCC 602. The word bona fide' mean genuinely, sincerely, i.e. in good faith in contradiction to mala fide. A Full Bench of the Court construed this to mean to genuinely or 'in good faith' and conveying an idea of absence of any intent to decicve, vide Chandra Kumar Sah v. District Judge Varanasi, 1976 RCR 274 : AIR 1976 All. 328 : 1977 ARC 142 (FB). It will not be bona fide requirement of the landlord if release is sought for an ulterior purpose or fanciful whim, vide Dr. Sita Ram Gandhi v. District Judge, Meerut 1978 (2) All India RCJ 326: Smt. Kamla Ahuja v. VIIth Additional District Judge Meerut and others, 1981 ARC 371. 19. This Bhagwati Lal's family which has six grown up children's and the total number of members as has come on record if taken note of would show that the need of the plaintiffs stands established. 20. Another argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that none of the landlord has put an appearance. According to him it was only the person for whose benefit the accommodation was sought could have projected the need. This argument is devoid of merit. The attorney holder has been looking after family. He has appeared in witness box. He has made an elaborate statement vis-a-vis all family members. The details of the children with whom the family was blessed has been rightly pointed out by him. Those who departed were also counted by him. It appears that he is fully conversant with all factual realities and the statement made by him can be taken note of. The mere fact that the landlords have not appeared in the witness would not go against them. As a matter of fact an attorney can appear in Court on behalf of the person for whom he holds the attorney. 21. Black's Law Dictionary. The mere fact that the landlords have not appeared in the witness would not go against them. As a matter of fact an attorney can appear in Court on behalf of the person for whom he holds the attorney. 21. Black's Law Dictionary. Fifth Edition page 117 defines the term as "In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute or one who is appointed and authorized to act in place or instead of another. The term letter of attorney or Power of attorney defined in the same Dictionary at Page No. 118 as under :- Letter of attorney : A power of attorney; a written instrument by which one person constitutes another his true and lawful attoney, in order that the latter may do for the former, and in his place and stead, some lawful act. An instrument of writing, appointing an attorney in fact for an avowed purpose and setting forth his powers and duties. It is, in effect, a mere contract of agency. A general power authorizes the agent to act generally in behalf of the principal. A special power is one limited to particular acts. Power of attorney : The instrument by which authority of one person to act in place and stead of another as attorney in fact is set forth. 22. The Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. Vs. M/s. Manilal and Sons 1961 SC 325 has held in categoric term that attorney can come and represent the person on whose behalf he appeared. His appearance would be good and valid. 23. Person having general power of attorney can appear before a tribunal and a Court. As to what importance is to be given to his statement is a different matter. The mere fact that tenant has not appeared in the witness box would in itself be of no consequence. Such is the view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case reported as Swaran Lata v. Dev Kumar (1991) 2 LRS 682. The view was expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Tulsiram vs. Bank of Maharashtra 1985 MPWN 310 is also relevant. As a matter of fact when the attorney appears and makes a false statement he can be held liable for criminal action also. The view was expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Tulsiram vs. Bank of Maharashtra 1985 MPWN 310 is also relevant. As a matter of fact when the attorney appears and makes a false statement he can be held liable for criminal action also. Such is the scope of authority given to an attorney. See : Anil Jain v. Amar Nath (1990) 7 PLR 178. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on two decisions, these are :- (i) Nanalal Goverdhandas & Co. and others vs. Smt. Samrat Lilachand Shah, 1981 Bom, 1. (ii) Shri Bhanuganga Tribuban Deb vs. Tehsildar Revenue in 1982 Ori 83. According to him, in these cases it has been laid down that unless and until the person for whose need the eviction is sought comes in witness box it would not be possible for the Court to come to an objective conclusion vis-a-vis the need of the land lord. The above decisions would not apply to this case. As indicated above, attorney holder is not a stranger to the family. He is associated with the family. He has given details with regard to all matters vis-a-vis the need of the family. Therefore, the view expressed by the Orissa and the Bombay High Court would not be attracted to the facts of this case. 25. Another argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the plaint it has not been indicated that he has been duly authorised to sign the pleadings. According to him unless and unitl there is specific averments in the plaint indicating that he has been duly authorised to sign the pleadings and he has also verified the same it cannot be said that the plaint was validly presented. A perusal of the plaint indicates that names of the four appellants are mentioned towards the end of the plaint and then a line has been added that on behalf of four person who figured as plaintiff Sitaram has signed as attorney. I am of the opinion that this line appearing in the plaint is good and sufficient and the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be sustained. 26. This appeal is accordingly found to be without merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. I am of the opinion that this line appearing in the plaint is good and sufficient and the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be sustained. 26. This appeal is accordingly found to be without merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant/tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises. Appeal allowed