9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of which this appeal arises and also state the facts of three cases filed by the parties in respect of the suit premises because they were referred to in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises. 3. The Appellants (Plaintiffs) are the wife and sons of one A. Radhakrishnan. The suit premises bearing Door No. S-3, Periyar Nagar Housing Unit, Erode Town, comprised in T.S. No. 909/3, Block No. 17 and 598/2 Part, Ward 1, Block 20, Surampatti Village, Erode Taluk, Erode sub-District, Erode Registration District was allotted to A. Radhakrishan by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In fact, entire area was acquired by the Housing Board and one house site therein was allotted to A. Radhakrishnan. Subsequently, A. Radhakrishnan made construction on the site allotted to him. 4. On 22.02.1987, A. Radhakrishnan executed a general power of attorney in favour of one V. Dhanapal and nominated him to administer and manage the suit premises on his behalf. 5. One N. Kalidass was in occupation of the suit premises as tenant. On 04.02.1988, he vacated and surrendered the possession of the suit premises to Dhanapal. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 took the suit premises on lease rent from Dhanapal unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 1 filed a petition bearing R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1991 Under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in the Court of the Rent Controller of Erode. In the meantime on 23.09.1994, A. Radhakrishnan expired intestate leaving behind him the present Appellants as his class I heirs and one daughter-Tmt. R. Kanjana. The Appellants thus became the owners of the suit premises by inheritance. 10. On 14.10.1998, Respondent No. 1 through his advocate sent a notice to the Appellants herein and Tmt. R. Kanjana, the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan, claiming that upon payment of Rs. 1 lakh on 08.05.1988, A.S. Pongainna had assigned his rights in the agreement dated 30.07.1987 executed between him and late A. Radhakrishnan, in his favour, therefore, he called upon the Appellants to execute the sale deed of the suit premises in his favour. 11. The Appellants then filed Eviction Petition bearing R.C.O.P. No. 26 of 1998 in the Court of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Erode against Respondent No. 1 out of which the present appeal arises seeking eviction of Respondent No. 1 from the suit premises Under Sections 10(2) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent No. 1. 17. Respondent No. 1 then filed an application seeking review of the order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 337 of 2002. 18. The High Court by judgment dated 05.02.2007, allowed Review Application No. 91 of 2004 filed by the Respondent No. 1. 19. As a result of review being allowed C.R.P. No. 337/2002 was restored to file for its hearing on merits. The High Court, this time, by impugned order dated 11.07.2007 allowed the revision filed by Respondent No. 1 on two legal grounds and set aside the order of the first appellate Court and also of Rent Controlling Authority. As a consequence, thereof, the eviction petition (RCOP No. 26 of 1998) filed by the Appellants was dismissed. It was held that the eviction petition filed by the Appellants is not maintainable because the daughter of Late A. Radhakrishnan, Tmt. R. Kanjana was not made a party to the eviction petition. According to the High Court she being one of the co-owners of the suit premises was a necessary party to eviction petition. It was also held that Appellants failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant with the Respondent No. 1 and on the other hand it appeared that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court in the case of Dhanalal (supra), the same deserves to be set aside. 26. Learned Counsel also pointed out that in any event, the aforementioned infirmity was cured by the Appellants factually because the daughter of late A Radhakrishnan, Tmt R. Kanjana was later added as a party in the eviction proceedings. 27. In the third place, learned Counsel urged that so far as the second ground is concerned, namely, Respondent No. 1 was inducted by Dhanapal in the suit premises and not by the Appellants and, therefore, the Appellants were not able to establish their relationship of landlord and tenant with Respondent No. 1 also has no merit for the reason that Dhanapal did not execute the tenancy agreement with Respondent No. 1 in his capacity as owner/landlord of the suit premises but executed the said tenancy agreement on behalf of late A. Radhakrishnan as his power of attorney holder. 28. Learned Counsel pointed out that in these circumstances any act done by Dhanapal in relation to suit premises including creation of tenancy was an act done for and on behalf of A. Radhakrishnan. It was, therefore, urged that the tenancy was, as a fact, between A. Radhakrishnan being owner/l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. 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. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. In Sri Ram Pasricha case reliance was placed by the tenant on the English rule that if two or more landlords institute a suit for possession on the ground that a dwelling house is required for occupation of one of them as a residence the suit would fail; the requirement must be of all the landlords. The Court noted that the English rule was not followed by the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat which High Courts have respectfully dissented from the rule of English law. This Court held that a decree could be passed in favour of the Plaintiff though he was not the absolute and full owner of the premises because he required the premises for his own use and also satisfied the requirement of being "if he is the owner", the expression as employed by Section 13(1)(f) of the W.B. Premises Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants in relation to suit premises. That apart, Respondent No. 1 in clear terms admitted in his evidence and in the pleading of cases filed by him against the Appellants about his status as being the tenant. In the light of this legal position, the High Court should have held this issue in Appellants' favour. 42. 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, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor. This was followed by this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706 (para 20). 43. When we apply this well settled principle of law to the facts of the case in hand, we are of the considered view that when Dhanapal, who was acting as an agent of A. Radhakrishnan on the strength of power of attorney, executed the tenancy agreement with Respondent No. 1 in relation to the suit premises then he did such execution for and behalf of his principal-A Radhakrishnan, which resulted in creating a relationship of landlord and tenant between A. Radhakrishnan and Respondent No. 1 in relation to the suit premises. In this execution, Dhanapal being an agent did not get any right, title and interest of any nature either in the suit premises or in tenancy in himself. The effect of execution of tenancy agreement by an agent was as if A. Radhakrishnan himself had executed with Respondent No. 1. 44. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not right in holding that the tenancy in relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
