The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the settled proposition of law is that where a party does not appear in witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct, and has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd , 2005-2-P.L.R.1, Hardev Singh v. Surjit Kaur, 2008-3 P.L.R.477 and Basant Kaur Vs.Romesh Deora,2008-4 P.L.R.313, to contend that since attorney cannot depose on behalf of the principal, the instant petition filed on behalf of the NRI landlord by his attorney is not maintainable. The contention as raised by the petitioner, as noticed above, is misconceived and does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down in the judgments as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the issue in the instant case is not with regard to the competence of an attorney to give evidence on behalf of his principal but maintainability of a petition filed by an attorney of a NRI landlord under section 13-B of the Act. It may also be relevant to refer to the judgment of
