JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2005 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer in Civil Regular Appeal No. 53/97 whereby the appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 28.1.97 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 217/93 by which suit for eviction has been decreed. 2. The short facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction stating therein that the appellant is a tenant in the shop for a rent of Rs. 250/- per month. He has made default and plaintiff also needed the premises for her son Raju who is unemployed and wants to start the business of repair of radio and TV. The appellant defendant filed a written statement controverting the facts and need of Raju. After hearing the parties, the suit has been decreed on personal necessity and comparative hardship and appeal has also been dismissed, hence this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeal as well as original record of the case. 4. Vide order dated 22.10.2007, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether the issue No.1 casted by trial court placing burden of proof on defendant was legal and in consonance with provisions of Order 14 of CPC ? (B) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff through her power of attorney holder was in accordance with order 3 of CPC ? (C) Whether evidence of power of attorney holder can consider as evidence of the plaintiff ? (D) Whether the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of not taking plea of partial eviction ? (E) Whether non allowing the application of Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC filed by defendant/appellant was in accordance with law ? (F) What will be effect on the suit for non producing material witness i.e. Sunil and Vijay ? 5. (E) Whether non allowing the application of Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC filed by defendant/appellant was in accordance with law ? (F) What will be effect on the suit for non producing material witness i.e. Sunil and Vijay ? 5. As regards question No.(A) with regard to burden of proof much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant on the issue that it is primary duty of the land lord to prove the default and burden of which has been wrongly placed on the appellant- defendant but the judgment of the appellate court goes to show that no objections have been made by the counsel for the appellant on the issue in the appeal, hence objections on this issue are futile at the stage of second appeal and furthermore when both the parties have adduced evidence on the issue, burden of proof becomes irrelevant and in view of the matter that issue has not been pressed by the appellant in the appeal, this question is answered against the appellant. 6. Question No. (B) has been framed with regard to maintainability of the suit through power of attorney holder. There is no dispute about the provisions contained in Order 3, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code which empowers the plaintiff to lodge a suit through power of attorney holder, hence in view of clear mandate of Order 3, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, the suit filed by the power of attorney holder is in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and the issue is decided against the appellant. 7. Question No.(C) is as regards the evidence of power of attorney holder. The contention of the appellant is that power of attorney holder cannot adduce evidence as if he was a party and reliance has been placed on Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. & ors., AIR 2005 SC 439 wherein it has been held that power of attorney holder cannot depose in place and instead of principal. The contention of the appellant is that power of attorney holder cannot adduce evidence as if he was a party and reliance has been placed on Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. & ors., AIR 2005 SC 439 wherein it has been held that power of attorney holder cannot depose in place and instead of principal. There is no dispute about this legal proposition.Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that in the present matter, power of attorney holder Govind Ram is also the husband of plaintiff and father of Raju for whom necessity has been pleaded and as such he is member of the family, he is aware of the facts personally, hence he can prove the necessity of his son which he has rightly proved and reliance has been placed on Smt. Shanti Devi Agarwal v. V.H. Lulla, AIR 2004 MP 58 where plaintiff's son has narrated evidence on behalf of plaintiff and it was held that bona fide requirement in reference to the family can be proved by any member of the family and plaintiff's son being power of attorney holder virtually steps into her shoes to prove the ground, hence the court below was justified in considering the statement of Govind Ram as he was also the family member of the plaintiff and reliance has been placed by the appellant on M/s Ramavatar Kailash Chand v. Smt. Suraj Bai, RLW 1986 523 where also it has been held that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to appear in the court and give evidence, the bona fide need can be proved by other evidence, both oral and documentary. Here in the present case, Govind Ram power of attorney holder of the plaintiff as well as father of Raju has proved the necessity and apart from this Raju has also deposed about his requirement. Further reliance has been placed on Kailashi Devi v. Matadeen Agarawal & 2 ors., 2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 493 ; and Sukh Lal v. LRs of Narayan Das & Anr., AIR 1995 Raj. 5 which has no bearing on the present issue. 8. Further reliance has been placed on Kailashi Devi v. Matadeen Agarawal & 2 ors., 2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 493 ; and Sukh Lal v. LRs of Narayan Das & Anr., AIR 1995 Raj. 5 which has no bearing on the present issue. 8. In the light of the above, the power of attorney holder has not deposed in place of plaintiff here but he has deposed in his personal capacity and as he is the head of the family, having personal knowledge of the requirement of his son and further need has been proved by the deposition of Raju and both the courts below have concurrently held that need of the plaintiff is bona fide and reasonable. 9. In view of the above, there is no force in the contention and this question is decided accordingly. 10. Question No. (D) is with regard to partial eviction. In this regard, the contention of the appellant is that issue of partial eviction has not been decided by any of the courts below which was bounden duty of the courts and reliance has been placed on Rahman Jeo Wangnoo v. Ram Chand & ors., AIR 1978 SC 413 wherein it has been held: "Proviso mandates the Court to consider whether eviction of tenant from part of premises is to be ordered, so as to substantially satisfy reasonable requirement of landlord- even in the absence of a specific pleading under proviso court has to act in compliance with the mandate and give a finding." 11. In the light of above, it was duty of the courts below to consider the issue of partial eviction as provided under Section 14(2) of the Rent Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Admittedly, the shop required for the bona fide, reasonable and personal necessity of Raju, he will start business of repairing Radio and TV in the disputed premises and when subject matter of tenancy is one single shop, the question of partial eviction does not arise and for this reliance has been placed on Ram Lal & ors. Admittedly, the shop required for the bona fide, reasonable and personal necessity of Raju, he will start business of repairing Radio and TV in the disputed premises and when subject matter of tenancy is one single shop, the question of partial eviction does not arise and for this reliance has been placed on Ram Lal & ors. v. Girraj & ors., 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) 683 wherein it has been held that when plea of partial eviction not urged before the trial court and first appellate court, the appellant is not allowed to take any new plea in second appeal and further it has been held that in case of tenancy of a single shop, question of partial eviction does not arise. Further reliance has been placed on Girdhari Lal v. Smt. Kanta & ors., 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 488 wherein it has been held as under:- "In the instant case the plaintiff instituted the suit in respect of one shop and it was required for the purpose of running hotel along with other rooms. The requirement was properly considered on the basis of pleadings of parties by both the courts below. A careful perusal of the material on record reveals that entire shop is reasonably and bona fide needed by the plaintiff for the purpose of ingress and installation of the counter. It is well settled law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and if landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property, his requirement cannot be termed as unreasonable. In view of the requirement of plaintiff as indicated herein above, I am of the view that non giving of any finding by the courts below, on the question of partial eviction, does not affect the root of the matter as in the facts and circumstances of the case the partial eviction is not possible. Both the courts below undoubtedly have not examined the mandate of Section 14(2) of the Rent Act, but I have closely scrutinised the material on record in view of the mandate of Section 14(2) of the Rent Act and in my considered opinion the partial eviction of tenant is not possible in the facts of this case. In case of Raj Kumar and Anr. In case of Raj Kumar and Anr. (supra) this court had occasion to examine the Section 14(2) of the Rent Act in the similar circumstances and it was held that where the things are so apparent that partial eviction is not possible, non giving of any finding by the courts below does not affect the decision." 12. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, non consideration of question of partial eviction is insignificant in the matter. Here before this Court, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is ready for partial eviction but no such plea has been raised before the court below and when single shop is required for the need of land lord, question of partial eviction does not arise and decree suffers no infirmity on this ground and this question is also answered against the appellant. 13. As regards question (E) and (F), nothing has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant and non production of witnesses Sunil and Vijay is not a question of law and should not be answered in this second appeal.In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissedThe appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******