9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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. - Hon'ble Judges Jasti Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. For Appellant : Nikhil Nayyar, Gautam Nayyar and T. Sen, Advs. For Respondents : B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv., Jayanth Muth Raj, Malavika J., P.V. Dinesh, Amit Gupta and Sarwa Mitter, Advs. for Mitter Mitter Co. JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Plaintiffs against the final judgment and order dated 11.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Revision Petition No. 337 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by Respondent No. 1 herein and set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the suit property to him. In this suit, Respondent No. 1 was impleaded as one of Defendants. 7. Respondent No. 1 filed a written statement in the aforesaid suit reiterating therein that he was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant under a lease deed dated 12.02.1989 for a period of 11 months at monthly rent of Rs. 850/- and on the expiry of the contractual period of lease, he continued to remain in the suit premises as a tenant. 8. Respondent No. 1 also, in the meantime, filed a suit being O.S. No. 87 of 1989 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Erode against A. Radhakrishnan and the Appellants herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the Appellants from dispossessing them from the suit premises. According to Respondent No. 1, he was a tenant and was put in possession of the suit premises by Dhanapal, the power of attorney holder of A. Radhakrishnan, pursuant to a lease deed dated 12.02.1989 for a period of 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 850/-. He also alleged that since the Appellants were dissatisfied with the rent fixed under the lease deed, therefore, they were attempting to dispossess him from the suit premises. In this suit, on 22.02.1990, A. Radhakrishnan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of law. 13. Vide order dated 05.01.1999, O.S. No. 53/1989 (which was renumbered as O.S. No. 549/1989) was dismissed as not pressed by the Appellants. 14. So far as the eviction petition out of which this appeal arises is concerned, the Rent Controller allowed RCOP No. 26 of 1998 filed by the Appellants vide order dated 31.10.2000 and directed the eviction of Respondent No. 1 from the suit premises. It was held that the Appellants are the owners/landlords of the suit premises. It was also held that Respondent No. 1 is in occupation of the suit premises as tenant. It was further held that Respondent No. 1 has committed willful default in paying the monthly rent and being a defaulter in payment of rent is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. It was also held that the Appellants have proved bona fide need for their personal residence in the suit premises because they were living in the rented house at a place called Salem. The Appellants were, therefore, held entitled to claim eviction of Respondent No. 1 from the suit premises on these findings. 15. Against the said order, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal bearing T.C.A. No. 5 of 2001 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Respondent No. 1 and in any event after its restoration erred in allowing the said revision petition. It was his submission that the High Court committed jurisdictional error in interfering in its revisionary jurisdiction in upsetting well reasoned concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller and the first appellate Court in Appellants' favour and that too on two grounds, which were not urged before the Rent Controller and the appellate Court by Respondent No. 1. 24. In the second place, learned Counsel urged that two legal grounds on which the High Court allowed the revision petition, namely, that non-joinder of one of the co-owners of the suit property (daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan) to the eviction petition was fatal to the filing of eviction petition and secondly, the Appellants were not able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant with Respondent No. 1 in relation to the suit premises, have no merit and deserve rejection. 25. Elaborating this submission, learned Counsel contended that so far as the first ground is concerned it is untenable in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions urged by learned Counsel for the Appellants. 32. Before we proceed to examine the issues raised in this appeal, we consider it apposite to take note of the law laid down by this Court on three issues which are involved in this appeal, viz., issue in relation to revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in rent matters; second, the scope of inquiry to examine the title of the landlord of the suit premises in eviction matters; and third, whether all the co-owners/co-landlords of suit premises are necessary parties in the eviction petition filed under the Rent Laws and lastly law relating to power of attorney executed by principal in favour of his agent. 33. So far as the issue pertaining to exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court while hearing revision petition arising out of eviction matter is concerned, it remains no more res integra and stands settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. Justice R.M. Lodha, the learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench held in para 43 thus: 43. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p 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. 35. Likewise, so far as issue pertaining to joinder of all co-owners in eviction petition filed against the tenant under the Rent Laws is concerned, the same also remains no more res Integra and stands settled by several decisions of this Court. In Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai Ors., (Supra), this Court took note of all case laws on the subject and explained the legal position governing the issue. Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held in paragraph 16 as under: 16. It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath (1976) 4 SCC 184, Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh v. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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. 39. In view of foregoing discussion, we can not concur with the finding of the High Court 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. 40. Now coming to the question as to whether the tenancy was between the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 or whether it was between Dhanapal and Respondent No. 1, we are of the considered view that to begin with the tenancy was between A. Radhakrishanan and Respondent No. 1 and on the death of A. Radhakrishnan, it was created between the Appellants being the Class-I heirs of A. Radhakrishnan and Respondent No. 1 by operation of law. 41. In our opinion, Dhanapal was a power of attorn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2005) 12 SCC 77, this Court held: (SCC pp. 90 101, paras 13 52) 13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. *** 52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase (supra), the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the first appellate Court in Appellants' favour on the issue of Appellants bona fide need for their personal residence and default committed by Respondent No. 1 in paying rent to the Appellants were binding on the High Court. 46. We have also perused these findings with a view to find out as to whether there is any perversity in these findings. We, however, find that these findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence as is required to be done in eviction matters and hence, they do not call for any interference in this appeal. 47. Learned Counsel for the Respondent made attempt to support the impugned judgment and urged submissions but we were not impressed by any of the submissions urged. 48. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and that of the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 28.06.2001 in R.C.A. No. 5 of 2001 is restored. As a consequence thereof, the eviction petition filed by the Appellants against Respondent No. 1 in relation to the suit premises is allowed. Respondent No. 1 is, howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
