9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1508 - SC - Indian LawsRevisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in rent matters - Eviction of premises - willful default in paying the monthly rent - scope of inquiry to examine the title of the landlord of the suit premises in eviction matters - necessary parties in the eviction petition filed under the Rent Laws - power of attorney executed by principal in favour of his agent. Revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in rent matters - HELD THAT - The issue remains no more res integra and stands settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS DILBAHAR SINGH 2015 (12) TMI 521 - SUPREME COURT . Justice R.M. Lodha, the learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench held ' The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.' Scope of inquiry to examine the title of the landlord of the suit premises in eviction matters - HELD THAT - The issue remains no more res integra and stands settled in the case of Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash 2002 (3) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT . Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held that the concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rent control laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. Whether all the co-owners/co-landlords of suit premises are necessary parties in the eviction petition filed under the Rent Laws? - HELD THAT - In the light of law laid down in the case of Dhannalal 2002 (7) TMI 755 - SUPREME COURT , it was not necessary for the Appellants to implead the Tmt. R. Kanjana-the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan in the eviction petition. Even otherwise, as rightly argued by learned Counsel for the Appellants, the High Court should not have allowed Respondent No. 1 to raise such objection for the first time in the revision because it was not raised in the courts below. Be that as it may, the daughter having been later impleaded in the proceedings, this objection was not even available to Respondent No. 1 - the finding of the High Court not concurred upon and while reversing the finding hold that the eviction petition can not be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of Tmt. R. Kanjana-the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan and is held maintainable. Power of attorney executed by principal in favour of his agent - HELD THAT - The law relating to power of attorney is governed by the provisions of the Power of Attorney Act, 1982. It is well settled therein that an agent acting under a power of attorney always acts, as a general rule, in the name of his principal. Any document executed or thing done by an agent on the strength of power of attorney is as effective as if executed or done in the name of principal, i.e., by the principal himself. An agent, therefore, always acts on behalf of the principal and exercises only those powers, which are given to him in the power of attorney by the principal. Any act or thing done by the agent on the strength of power of attorney is, therefore, never construed or/and treated to have been done by the agent in his personal capacity so as to create any right in his favour but is always construed as having done by the principal himself. An agent, therefore, never gets any personal benefit of any nature. The High Court was not right in holding that the tenancy in relation to suit premises was with Dhanapal. We cannot thus concur with the finding of the High Court and accordingly reverse the finding and hold that the Appellants were able to prove that the tenancy in relation to the suit premises was between A. Radhakrishnan and Respondent No. 1 and on the death of A. Radhakrishnan, it was created between the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 by operation of law which entitled the Appellants to maintain the eviction petition against Respondent No. 1 seeking his eviction on the grounds available to them under the Act. The impugned judgment is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-joinder of necessary parties in the eviction petition. 2. Establishment of landlord-tenant relationship. 3. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court in rent matters. 4. Scope of inquiry to examine the title of the landlord in eviction matters. 5. Law relating to power of attorney executed by the principal in favor of his agent. Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties: The High Court held that the eviction petition was not maintainable because the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan, Tmt. R. Kanjana, was not made a party. The Supreme Court reversed this finding, stating it was against the law laid down in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16, which establishes that not all co-owners need to be impleaded in an eviction petition. Furthermore, the daughter was later added as a party, curing any potential defect. 2. Establishment of Landlord-Tenant Relationship: The High Court found that the Appellants failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship with Respondent No. 1, suggesting the tenancy was between Dhanapal and Respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that Dhanapal acted as a power of attorney holder for A. Radhakrishnan, and thus any tenancy agreement executed by him was on behalf of Radhakrishnan. This created a landlord-tenant relationship between A. Radhakrishnan and Respondent No. 1, which devolved to the Appellants upon Radhakrishnan's death. 3. Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction: The High Court's revisional jurisdiction was scrutinized based on the precedent set in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate body but should only correct errors of law or procedural irregularities. The High Court's interference was deemed inappropriate as it upset well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the first appellate court. 4. Scope of Inquiry to Examine the Title of the Landlord: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle from Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (2002) 3 SCC 375, stating that the concept of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation under rent control laws differs from that in a title suit. The landlord need only prove entitlement to evict the tenant and control the premises, not full ownership. 5. Law Relating to Power of Attorney: The Supreme Court clarified the law on power of attorney, citing Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656. An agent under a power of attorney acts on behalf of the principal, and any act done by the agent is as effective as if done by the principal. Dhanapal, acting under the power of attorney, created a tenancy between A. Radhakrishnan and Respondent No. 1, not between himself and Respondent No. 1. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the first appellate court's decision, which directed the eviction of Respondent No. 1. The Appellants were found to have established the landlord-tenant relationship and proved their bona fide need for the premises. Respondent No. 1 was granted three months to vacate the premises, subject to specific conditions. The appeal was allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- to be paid by Respondent No. 1 to the Appellants.
|
